See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 5 of 48
 [ 952 posts ] 
See someone try to defend creationism honestly
Author Message
AsrahnUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:53 amLocation: Sweden Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

dotoree wrote:Please cite 5 significant cases in scientific history where scientists accepted a position as a default that had ZERO evidence of any kind supporting it. Nice reference to non-stamp collector..I know his videos well..and I think he is one of several atheists who banned me from commenting like above, censoring me because he didn't like my ideas.
Bryan


If I may use myself as an example. I could at least be a witness for the fact that there is no such thing as a "godly imprint" on newborns, seeing I didn't come across the idea of gods or god until I asked about my father's tattoo featuring Mjolnir, which was at the age of about 10 or so. You're born without knowledge (although admittedly with some manner of instinct-based behaviour) - and further up along the road, the only thing in the world that can actually tell you of the supernatural is, to be slightly offensive, the mentally ill or the few religious folks around here.

The Bible makes equally as much sense to me as the Koran, or the good ol' pagan fables. Although polytheism is way more awesome than its mono friend. Lack of belief (or knowledge) is the default position.
God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.
- H.L. Mencken
Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:45 pm
SparkyUser avatarPosts: 148Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:17 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Squawk wrote:Evolution: descent with inherited modification in a reproducing population.


dotoree wrote:Squawk,
Your definition of evolution is unusable. There is no difference between that and creationist natural selection. If there is no distinction in the difference in range, you can't distinguish between them. The extent of change that it causes MUST be defined and most cover the same ground as creation. The other definition above, including point 12 is what we need to use and I will follow that.


Bryan, you seem to be neglecting or are unaware of the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution is the observed phenomenon; the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. The difference between the two is the same as the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity. Squawk has defined evolution and it is sufficient- what you are looking for is someone to lay out the theory of evolution.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
~Andre Gide
Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:58 pm
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3508Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: definitions and straw men and rights to define

dotoree wrote:1) god, 2) religion, 3) faith, 5) belief, 7) evidence, 8) empirical rationalism

Did you miss the post where I pointed out the flaws in the flaws you claim these have?


doteree wrote:6) Darwinian evolution

I'm sorry but the theory of neo-darwinian evolution has a precise rigid definition within the scientific community; if you try to redefine you are already violating your claim to honesty.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:33 pm
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3508Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

dotoree wrote:Please cite 5 significant cases in scientific history where scientists accepted a position as a default that had ZERO evidence of any kind supporting it.

It's called the null-hypothesis, and its invention was quite important.

EDIT I was beat to this already :( That's what i get for being in a hurry.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:36 pm
scalyblueUser avatarPosts: 1416Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:02 am

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

dotoree wrote:Very good scalyblue. There's a definition of evolution that fits the requirements for them to be competitors. Esp. point #12.
Uh, no. That is the definition of evolution. There is no competition. That image is very specific. Those points are what evolution is. If you have any problem with evolution, please provide an evidentiary claim as to which of those twelve points is inaccurate. This isn't a competition, this is the anvil of acceptance being lobbed at your forehead and hopefully you'll catch it before you bleed.

dotoree wrote:Yes, it is most certainly scientific and if others agree with your definition of evolution above, we're about to get to showing that. Saying things like these things is an apriori assumption and not very helpful. All of these are flagrantly false.
scalyblue wrote:Creation itself is an non-refutable hypothesis.
Creation science isn't science.
It is for this very reason that there can be no useful advancement of knowledge from this belief.
They had no scientific understanding of things, attributing easily explainable phenomina like rain to supernatural causes.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. It either means that my statements are so blatantly obvious as to be undisputable, such as "All well lit things are not dark"
It has an alternative meaning as an argument without a logical basis. I'm sorry, but all of those arguments have a logical basis. I don't need to state the logical basis becuase they are a priori statements. You can't call a non-argumentative statement a priori and call it "flagrantly false" at the same time.

Here, let me state some more a priori statements.

"Creation science" will never be science because it makes a fundamental assumption that creation is real and never attempts to falsify creation. A "creation scientist" who finds evidence supporting a posit other than creation is obligated to attribute that evidence to some long and twisted string of logic to try to make it fit into the tetris-puzzle the bronze-agers have set up for him, and it isn't a line piece.

There can be no useful advancement of knowledge from a belief in creationism, and there never has been. The only useful advances have been when free thinkers have discarded that belief and observed the real world. There is absolutely no practical application for "Goddidit" while there are hundreds of millions of practical applications for cosmology, relativity, biology and geology, several thousand of which are being utilized in the computer you are relying on to maintain this communication.

the biblical storytellers had no scientific understanding of anything, science and the scientific method had yet to be developed, and I don't care if you are able to scrape together the few middling examples of astute observation in the bible because those few examples will be sandwiched in utter idiocy. Just because the Hobbit says that a ring fits on your finger does NOT make it a work of non-fiction.

The people who wrote the bible had no idea about the water cycle, no matter how many interpretive apologetic gymnastics you leap around, the concept was as far outside of their knowledge as the atomic bomb was to the ancient egyptians who worshipped a sun god swallowing things up.


dotoree wrote:I recognize that it is your opinion, but it is not even close to fact based on the evidence I have. So, try to avoid making conclusions before we look at the evidence. That's not how science is done. I don't expect you to agree that creation is scientific at present. We'll get to explaining why I think it is after we agree on what is evidence and a couple other definitions (I may just skip agreement on some definitions to save time).

I've looked at other positions and compared them to my own for DECADES. I have ZERO interest in following fiction and dogma.

Your view of history and the accuracy of the Bible would force us to burn the majority of our historical records. We'll get to that in not too long I hope.


The amount of time you've looked at other positions is irrelevant since you're wrong. Your interest in fiction and dogma is irrelevant since you're wrong. Your evidence doesn't exist.

Oh, the bible is not accurate at all. It is not a historical record. It never was intended to be a historical record. It can only be loosely, LOOSELY be aligned with empirical evidence for the history of things that actually happened, and even then it only applies to a very small patch of land that would otherwise have been completely insignificant in the light of, say, the chinese or the south american civilizations if uncle Charlemagne didn't see a comet while he was smoking the weed. Other historical records are completely valid historical records because they can be validated through multiple ways

dotoree wrote:But, for a decent overview, you can go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlxNWAsSOk

The vid is a bunch of non-sourced apologist nonsense set to crappy rap music with...star wars references? Yeah, how about, no.
_________________
悪夢の王の一片よ
空のいましめ解き放たれし
凍れる黒き虚無の刃よ
我が力 我が身となりて
共に滅びの道を歩まん
神々の魂すらも打ち砕き
Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:20 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2466Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:57 pmLocation: Portugal Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

dotoree wrote:Here are views from a few scientists on objectivity and the dangers of being excessively skeptical. One of the biggest problems with that is that those who are excessively skeptical are the last to benefit from new truths in science and religion.
("¦)

1. Quote mining and appeals from authority are logical fallacies. So there goes honesty.
2. Can you give me a method of measurement to be able to quantify skepticism?

dotoree wrote:2) 1 person said that that no one has ever talked to God. Denying evidence a priori like this is a violation of many of the quotes above. There is MUCH evidence that many have talked to God and gotten information which could only come from the supernatural. Hopefully we'll get to that.

Outright lie. Many of the quotes were made by openly non-believers, which would have been an oxymoron if they have indeed talked to God. But that is not the biggest problem; the biggest problem is that you state up front that there is much evidence that they have talked to God when there is no such thing, you pulled that right out of your ass.
If you care to prove me wrong, then give me an example of supernatural revelation and I will show you to be meaningless, misinterpreted or mundane, give me a person who claims that has talked to God and I will show you a liar or a lunatic.

dotoree wrote:4) Could you precisely define what you think the difference is between a Christian scientist and a scientist who is a Christian.

A scientist who is also a Christian is just a science in the lab, a Christian scientist is a fraud who manipulates the results when they do not align with their Christian beliefs.

dotoree wrote:5) No, truths are not always true for all or none. Certain people have high risks for heart disease. Others don't. O- people can donate blood to all. Others can't.

Straw man. If something is true, it is true for everyone. If Bob is more likely to have a heart disease than John, than this must be true either this statement is presented for Bob as for John. You are not entitled to your own reality different from everybody else's reality.
What you did was to undefined the subject of the statement and say "You are likely to have an heart disease" and said that applies to Bob but not to John forgetting the meaning of the word "You" which is a place holder to index the subject, where You in Bob's case is Bob and in John's case is John. What you did was to say that they are both the same affirmation, committing the fallacy of equivocation, in this case equivocating John with bob.
We haven't even got to the science of it and you are already failing to deliver on the promised.
dotoree wrote:7)a) Evidence ("¦)

You don't get to claim that X is evidence of Y when Y makes any establishment of X. Because if Y were true and X can either be true or not true, the realization that X is true or not will not get you any closer to Y.


dotoree wrote:b) When the Bible's claims and the claims of scientific establishments have conflicted, the scientific establishment has a horrifically bad record of being right. Most rational people prefer to invest their money following people like Warren Buffet, rather than someone who opposes Buffet. For a similar reasons many Christians know that the Bible's claims have proven accurate in case after case after case when the scientific or historical establishments claimed differently. It's simple logic to trust a source that has such an incredibly good track record.

Outright lie. Scripture doesn't not contain meaningful knowledge about the real world in it, and every time a world view of the Bible has conflicted with Science, guess who wins? The biblical fact that the world is flat, the biblical fact that Rainbows are the sign of the covenant with God, that there is a Heaven just above the clouds, the rabbits chew their cud, the world falls within 6000 years of history and that it will end within the life time of people who lived 2000 years ago. How many of these bible truths have stand against science?


dotoree wrote:c) Many things have been true in history that scientists couldn't test. Scientists mocked and ridiculed the existence of a number of animals that native people's testified existed such as pandas, gorillas, komodo dragons etc. The credible witnesses were right and the scientific establishments were wrong.

I don't know of any scientific process which involves ridicule. However the fact that you know about them has only been possible because of the recognition of the "scientific establishment", which I would think that it would be a direct contradiction to the statement "Scientists couldn't test".

dotoree wrote:d) Atheism has very few if any benefits to offer and less evidence for those almost non-existent benefits. It's quite a depressing philosophy ending in the death of YOU and everyone you know. If that's true, we'll have to deal with it and make the best of it. But, I'm not interested in following a philosophy with no real benefits on this earth or the next that doesn't even usually attempt to provide evidence in contrast to the Christian worldview that offers numerous practical benefits both on this earth and for eternity and has given us billions of confirmations of it's claims.

1. Although I can talk from experience (which you can't) that I am rather happier and functional as an Atheist then when I was as a Christian.
2. Statements about how it makes you feel have no relation to what is real. Reality is the way it is and I can't change it for you. You don't like it, tough shit. What you have said, is that you are not willing to follow the truth if it leads to the "dark and corner of atheism", in direct contradiction to following the evidence where it leads. You have openly stated that you rather live in your deluded comfortable truth rather than face the cold reality.

dotoree wrote:This has been proven true in numerous cases. Pascal's wager is valid, that Christianity offers the best things in life now as well as life for eternity, so how can you lose by being a Christian (there are certain exceptions to that, such as for Christians living in North Korea right now, but in general it's true).

Things don't become true just because you say so. There have been many topics on this thread and many videos by popular atheist on YouTube dragging the Pascal's wager to the grave.
But if you so insist. The Muslim religion insists that all infidels that do not follow the words of the prophet Mohamed are sentenced to hell, however they also believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure. So it seems to me a much safer bet to me a Muslim. So have you converted to Islam?... Go ahead convert... Why aren't you converting? So what about that thing that Pascal's Wager pays of?

dotoree wrote:8) Someone said that creationists are bound by a fear of hell. That is not at all what motivates me and is a very immature theological stage to be at. Furthermore, the Bible does not teach that hell burns forever. That's a demonic myth that has its origins in Greek myth. I could leave Christianity in an instant if I was solidly convinced that something else had much more evidence and comparable benefits both in this world and for eternity.

There was a question accompanying that which you have not answered. You would you risk hanger God by doubting him so you can find the truth? Would you bite the apple to know right from wrong?
I want you to explicitly answer this question.

dotoree wrote:9) Faith is based on evidence in many cases. But, there are many kinds of evidences it is based on. Most informed Christians have faith because of evidence. Quite a few atheists have come to have faith in God precisely because of the evidence in science.

The old story of an atheist who has converted to Christianity because of the crushing evidence of it. Nice, do you personally know any atheist who has converted to Christianity, or even have done so because of the evidence? I certainly can give you several examples of people I do know who have done the exact opposite.

dotoree wrote:10 "How does one defend something honestly when it would require them to deny facts and knowledge, some of which is over 100 years old?"
100 year old knowledge is very little in the history of science. The geocentric model was overthrown after 1500 years of being taught as truth. Many other examples like that.

100 years is a long time. 1500 years is overwhelmingly so, the scientific method is much younger than that. We have gone from flying to the moon in less than 50. It doesn't mean that Evolution is necessarily true because much time has passed; now to claim that not enough time has yet passed for an opportunity to arise to dethrone Evolution is blatantly false.

dotoree wrote:11) No, we DO NOT know factually that the earth is a couple billion years old. But, neither do creationists know for certain that it is only a few thousand years old (and the Bible doesn't actually tell us the age of the earth anywhere).

Actually there is, you may not be knowledgeable enough to do it but there certainly is. The bible has a claimed genealogy since Adam (and therefore the creation of the earth), and even if you abuse on the average human life span and we say 1000 years each generation, the upper bound would still fall orders of magnitude short compared to what we do know.

dotoree wrote: There are all sorts of dating methods. Over 80+ point to a young earth, some to a mid age earth and some to an old earth. No dating methods are based on observations of even 200 years, let alone 1000s or millions. They all depend on numerous assumptions, extrapolations and other issues. You can basically pick and choose which dating method matches your apriori views. To me that's not very solid science. Laboratory "facts" are not things that can't be overturned with time and are impervious to new evidence and new understandings. Many times they have been.

This is blatantly absurd and an outright lie. Let me point you out to potholer54 who has a good collection of videos which explain how some of the methods work in a very simplified way so you might be able to understand.

dotoree wrote:Ohm's law only applies to constant currents,

Me being an engineer studying in the field I can say that this is false. Ohm's law applies in every circumstance where you can measure a current and a voltage because it is an equation relating a current with a voltage. If you can always measure a current and a voltage you can always calculate an equivalent resistance. What isn't true is to assume that physical electric component which we call resistance maintains a constant resistivity in every circumstance; we know that its value can change with temperature as to the history of the electrical component being forced.

dotoree wrote:Bernoulli's principle

The Bernoulli's principle is not a law but a principle, and to think that this would be obvious by the name.

dotoree wrote: Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields,

The Newton's has a well defined domain of application. If we need more accurate model because Newton's Gravitational model has fallen outside the domain of application we use General Relativity (pay of course with extra calculation effort). But we do know this.
What exactly you intend to imply with this?
Just because the scientific hands on work approach doesn't always produce the right answer up front, it doesn't mean that you can now claim that the blind and dogmatic Religion has certainly got it right (if something didn't got it right, that doesn't mean that you got it right either).

dotoree wrote:Problems with old earth dating methods
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp3303729
Many dating methods indicating a young earth
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp2534183
Problems with radioactive dating
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html

Curious to see you claim that "scientists make too many incorrect assumptions" while every single article you posted establish its conclusion just by simply stating "X can happen, but it doesn't (because you say so) and therefore X is wrong", this is worse than the scientific level of a toddler. If a 10 year old were to posit such reasoning in one of my science classes I would fail him, and yet here we have an adult who fancies himself an apt educator making this level of argumentation.

dotoree wrote:Yes, scientific definitions are different from dictionary definitions at times (such as on the term "theory" as I mentioned before). It's not illegal to redefine words. People do that for good reasons at times. But, you need to have some serious reasons for doing it and you need to make sure everyone understands that.

We seem to have pretty good agreement on many terms. But, several definitions Aronra made either don't match the dictionary, don't match what Christians mean by those terms AT ALL (which means Aronra's definitions are straw men), are very deficient, or have other problems. If you insist on Aronra's controversial definitions, then you will be setting up a straw man about what I and most creationists actually believe.

Christians are not scientists. AronRa however is proficiently educated in the field of science; you cannot grab scientific definitions say "that is not what I interpret it to be" and change its meaning, if you are talking science you use scientific definitions. Or else YOU! not AronRa or the scientist that are creating a Straw man, because you want things to mean what it want it to be and not what it is.

dotoree wrote:Atheists don't have any right whatsoever to define what Christians believe in regards to the first 5.

Neither do Christians. Would you think it would be correct if I defined non-belief as a "2 legged donkey with gonorrhea" just because I am an atheist?
To have a meaningful conversation you must have a meaningful set of definitions, if you make ambiguous definitions then what you are doing is building a path way for equivocation fallacies (a method apparently popular in the church). If you say that what we have mentioned does not represent your view for instance of God, then you most likely do not believe in a God but something else (for instance we have extra terrestrial or super humans for non-supernatural entities), if it doesn't represent your position when you say faith then what you have is not faith (there is the word belief). It avoids unnecessary equivocations when they are strictly defined (and that is why we are being persistent in this point), nothing prevents you from exposing your beliefs. For instance the Christian God (which I am now going to simply refer as God) has this and that property that you have already presented without preventing the use of the term God when referring for instance to the classical Gods. You can use belief instead of faith, leaving the word faith to be used when referring to blind belief.
Plus the defined terms we presented to you does represent the point of view you claim to represent (I know I have been a Christian myself).
As I have stated before, I will not allow you to weave your conclusions into your definitions, so you can forget about that.

dotoree wrote:The entry on 'atheism' in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You apparently didn't read anything I have said. Atheism is a Latin derived word, you don't get to re-write the Latin language Period.

benthemiester wrote:When we speak of creationism we cannot just pick and choose which part of creationism disputes or deals with the theory of non theistic evolution. If we are going to do this subject any justice we have to start at the beginning.
First of all most cosmologist agree that the universe had a beginning, that is to say, there was something that brought the universe into existence according to the fundamental laws of physics as we know them and as almost everyone agrees.

There could have been a big bang and later god decided to specially create earth and human beings. Since one doesn't prevent or imply the other your point is mute.

dotoree wrote:1) It doesn't make any claims that are testable and thus can't be considered scientific. If it's not scientific and has no evidence, it's not rational (rationality and logic are also based on testable things). It's only an opinion.

The same way Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was our lord and savior. It doesn't make any claims that are testable and thus can't be considered scientific. If it's not scientific and has no evidence, it's not rational (rationality and logic are also based on testable things). It's only an opinion.
I believe and I don't believe is a rather different statement from that of it is and it isn't. You are making again the fallacy of equivocation.

dotoree wrote:2) If a competitor to that definition of atheism produces a single piece of evidence of any type, atheism loses and those who are honest in heart will have to give up that concept.

The same way a competitor to that definition of Christianity produces a single piece of evidence of any type, Christianity loses and those who are honest in heart will have to give up that concept. (wait, but there is evidence, and yet there are Christians).


I will end the rest later.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:03 pm
WWW
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3508Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

This discussion will go nowhere until definitions are established... I know some of you don't like the definition bit, but if you don't define things precisely we'll end up with goalpost moving.

dotoree, I can't help but notice you continue to fail to address my post where I critique your critique of AronRa's definitions and say why I certainly don't accept your proposed modifications.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:18 pm
dotoreePosts: 171Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:38 pm Gender: Male

Post WHY IS ATHEISM VS. THEISM, CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION IMPORTA

One does not need to be an atheist to accept evolution and one does not need to accept evolution to be an atheist.

True. But, they are quite closely linked as major evolutionists agree. Dr. Will Provine a Cornell biologist and evolutionist, states,
"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."

Atheism requires no ability to explain the universe, it's the default position, you don't believe in stuff without evidence and this should apply to God as much as it applies to unicorns.

There is no default. If you don't have evidence, you aren't involved in science period.

The null hypothesis requires no evidence. This is a simple concept.

About the null hypothesis. Try to look at this from a scientific viewpoint.:
1) It's a hypothesis, not a theory or law. Hypotheses are not evidence. They have never been considered such.
2) You admit there a null hypothesis has no need for evidence. Where does the scientific method allow that?
3) It uses words like assumptions a lot. These are not evidence.

In 3 separate ways, it's easy to see that this is not part of the scientific method (and add to that, it was invented by a leading evolutionist).

loled. I really did. You seem to be confusing atheism with evolution.

No. I was just making an illustration. I could have used one from atheism or evolution or other concepts.

OK, here we go on why this issue is important. I'm sure there will be some disagreement, but check the links before commenting please. The next two messages will list Bible health principles millenia ahead of science that have drastically improved millions of lives THESE days and all through history as well for those who followed them. Then the next one after that will be the first evidence from science for creation science.

WHY IS ATHEISM VS. THEISM, CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION IMPORTANT
These are some of the benefits of Christianity over atheism and evolution and why we should at a minimum make sure we do not ban any evidence for them and do not set up any fixed playing fields and also why we should teach some of these facts in school. This is a short version believe it or not. There are many more confirmations of these ideas if needed. If there is any bias we must have, it should be a bias towards more and better life for the human race. Christianity has improved this in numerous ways that almost no other organization on the entire planet can match. I'd argue for following the weight of evidence with no apriori exclusions..but pretty much all humans are unable to remove bias completely (including myself). So, if we must have some bias...bias towards benefits and improvements to life on this world and eternal life should be it in my humble opinion. The Bible says this:
"Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come." 1 Timothy 4:8

Here's a bit of proof of that I've had time to put together even though I'm extremely busy and there's quite a bit more than this.

JUSTICE: If there is no God, no 'next life', then people who have been victims of criminals or the disabled, mentally ill, etc. have had an insanely unjust existence and will never have a chance at anything else. If atheism is true, there will never be justice for millions of people and they have lost out on most of this life's joys as well. This is extremely unfair and no one should wish this to be true. This on its own should cause us to consider religion as objectively as possible since these injustices can be rectified.

LONGEVITY: To my knowledge, Darwinian evolution has never added a single day to anyone's life. People who follow the Bible's health principles though live 10+ years longer than the average. It's not just longer life, it's high quality life too with people playing basketball into their 80s, doing surgeries at 97 and waterskiing and riding horses at 103, volunteering with many charities at 104. Isn't science supposed to follow ideas that improve life? What possible good could come from banning evidence from ANY worldview that has evidence that it can improve life? To do this is simply irrational and a fundamental violation of science. (links with evidence of this in the next message)

SACRIFICE: Christians have been willing to sacrifice huge amounts of money and time to help the underprivileged and poor in other nations. So many of the hospitals, establish orphanages and schools around the world were built by Christian missionaries with much sacrifice. In some cases, Christians sacrificed their lives to bring truth to others. Millions of them sacrificed a comfortable life at home, good food they grew up with, meeting friends from their same culture, to go abroad and help other people's learn about science, medical knowledge, Jesus, gain literary skills, advance science and adapt it and so much more. The misery of the world would be multiplied numerous times without their sacrifice. There are some atheists who

CHANGED LIVES: A famous pastor once challenged an atheist to show how atheism had changed lives and rescued those from the dregs of society. He said he would bring 100 people who have been saved from drugs, gangs, abusive behaviour, prostitution, alcoholism and other addictions by Jesus' power. He challenged the atheist to bring just one person like that whose life had been saved by atheism. The atheist failed to bring even one person. That challenge has been given many times and I don't know of any cases where atheism has saved someone from seriously destructive addictions. If there are cases like that, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of lives that Christianity has revolutionized, rescued and inspired to make positive contributions to society in a host of ways.

NUMEROUS ADVANCES IN SCIENCE
Here is a SHORT list of branches of science that were pioneered by Christian scientists with deep religious belief. Quite a few ideas in science were inspired directly or indirectly by science. Most people are ignorant of this precisely because religion has been banned from public education. To ban knowledge of the facts of how many scientists made their discoveries and what they were inspired by, is a serious perversion of history not that different from banning the story of Darwin's Galapagos journey from students readings. There could be more branches of science and more advances in different areas to be found in the Bible as has been true in the past.

SHORT VERSION
"¢ MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste Roger Bacon
"¢ ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, John Harris.
"¢ PHYSICS. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Thompson (Kelvin), Tait, Lemaà®tre and MANY more.
"¢ SPACE SCIENCE&ROCKETRY: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of space science, 1st NASA director most responsible for putting men on the moon. "There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator."
"¢ GENETICS: Gregor Mendel
"¢ COMPUTER SCIENCE. Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, etc.
"¢ ANTISEPTIC SURGERY/BACTERIOLOGY VACCINATION. Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Anton von Leeuwenhoek, Edward Jenner
"¢ RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians: Bernhard Riemann & James Clerk Maxwell. He also used the Michelson-Morely & Morley was a Christian.
"¢ CHEMISTRY: Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. Michael Faraday, John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry
"¢ SYNTHETICS: George Washington Carver
"¢ ANESTHESIOLOGY. Crawford Long, James Young Simpson
"¢ GEOLOGY. Nels Steno the Father of Geology and many others.
"¢ THERMODYNAMICS. James Joule and Lord Kelvin
"¢ WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. Thomas Young, Augustin-Jean Fresnel, etc.
"¢ FIELD THEORY. Michael Faraday first envisioned field theory.
"¢ OPTICS. George Berkeley idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.

This site looks at the history and background of just a few of the Christian pioneers of science and shows how biblical concepts sometimes directly or indirectly contributed to their discoveries:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm

ETERNAL FUTURE: Evolution is not the same as atheism, but the fact is that it has led millions into atheism (Voltaire, Stalin, Darwin, Antony Flew, etc.) and to ignore useful ideas in science and the Bible.
WHY BE BIASED IN FAVOR OF DEATH? It could be understandable to be biased in favor of things that are beneficial. It's simple logic and a good bet. We should try to avoid bias as much as possible, whenever we can identify it. But, one of the worst things is to be biased in favor of harmful things and things with no benefit. Let's say we're comparing two ways you could spend your time for a day. For example, if you hear someone you know is honest say that you can get a free Lamborghini by waiting in a line and that he got one and that several other of your friends have gotten one and there's a legal contract guaranteeing you one, those are quite powerful reasons to be favorably biased towards standing in that line because there's nothing to lose and possibly something very valuable to gain.You could go to a bar and drink for an hour or stand in line for an hour and possibly win a lamborghini AT LEAST you should consider it as objectively as possible. In a similar way, we know that cigarettes kill ~5 million people a year in very horrible ways and destroy quality of life too. There's absolutely no reason to be biased in favor of smoking cigarettes. Everyone agrees that at the end of life, atheism offers nothing. There is much evidence that following God produces many benefits in this life as well as the next and that was Pascal's wager. It's pretty much a no brainer with one exception. My dad says there are some toxic churches, and I'd agree. If people in a church are not following God and doing a lot of abusive things, then it could be worse in this life. That can happen in any group unfortunately. But, stay away from churches where people think it's not important to obey God. In most cases though Christianity has tremendous benefits for health, happiness, relationships, and a number of other very important things.

MONEY: Billions if not trillions of dollars and huge amounts of time have been spent teaching and researching evolution. Recently, $100 million was spent at Harvard to build a center to research the abiogenesis type origins of life. With all the practical things we could be studying and all the massive problems we have to solve (global warming, poverty, pollution, terrorism, education, etc.) there are many far more important and life saving areas that this money could be spent. That money could have solved many hunger, educational and medical problems around the world (which would also significantly reduce violence and conflict). Many experts on both sides are coming to the view that science works perfectly well without Darwinian evolution and that it has not helped science, but actually hindered science. Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand genetics, germ theory or biological functions? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No. Any benefit that has come from natural selection has come only from speciation from the species to family level which was part of creation science long before Darwin. Evolutionists claim natural selection as their invention and that minor changes prove evolution even up to the kingdom levels. It does nothing of the sort since it was in creation science LONG before Darwinism even existed. Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University, wrote:
"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss...
From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Skell, P., Why do we invoke Darwin? The Scientist 16:10.

The Ph.D. cell biologist Dr. David Menton has stated,
"The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education." Dr. David Menton, A testimony to the power of God's Word. quoted in http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... scientists

DISCOURAGES SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY: Since evolution thinks that we descended from other animals, etc. it has promoted the concept that we have vestigial organs, junkDNA and other useless things in our bodies. Creation science teaches that God made all things for a purpose and with the exception of where there has been interference in this original design, we should find purpose for pretty much everything. This stimulates scientific inquiry. Evolutionary views delayed and hindered investigation into the purpose and function of vestigial organs and junkDNA. In almost every case now though, we know that these have important functions in our bodies.

HISTORY: Evolution causes us to think that ancient people were mostly ignorant cavemen acting like monkeys and barbarians. There is much evidence that many ancient people were very very advanced. See for example http://www.s8int.com/sophis1.html Evolution encourages a version of history that denigrates our ancestors and their achievements and discourages enquiry into these areas.

RELIGION: Evolution hypothesized that belief in God was at first polytheistic and evolved from a belief in nature being God to eventually progressed to a belief in 1 God. Again much money and time was spent on this imagination. Scholars now have shown that in almost every case monotheism was the original religious belief of nearly every culture we know about. 1 scholar alone compiled 12 volumes of evidence on this.

HUMILITY/SUBMISSION: Some people ridicule Christianity for encouraging people to submit to each other (men are supposed to do so just as much or more than women. See Ephesians 5:20). When people have disagreements and each person just follows their own opinion, it will often lead to conflict and be hard to resolve and can damage the relationship. But, if they put others needs above their own needs, and live with an attitude of cheerful desire to do what makes others happy all the time, it can cause a radical level of growth and satisfaction in relationships. Admitting REAL errors and apologizing for them is a critical part of restoring and improving relationships. Pride destroys much happiness as well as progress in science and knowledge and in some cases causes wars. People submit to teachers in order to become wiser and more skillful and make more money. In a similar way, submission to God's ways, the ultimate teacher, have helped many to make enormous personal improvements and some that have helped them make extremely valuable contributions to science and society.

MORALITY/FREE WILL/PURPOSE IN LIFE: William Provine, a Cornell biologist and evolution supporter, plainly states what Darwinism means for human values, "No life after death; No ultimate foundation for ethics; No ultimate meaning for life; No free will." If evolution is true, then natural selection, not our free choice, is what controls our destiny, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose for our lives (although people can make that up subjectively) and there is no objective reliable moral compass (but again people can make up their own subjective versions). If Darwinism is followed to its logical social conclusion, any course of action taken by the strong against the weak can be justified as harmonious with the process of natural selection. Evolution Modern human history has clearly shown the devastating impact of the evolution theory upon mankind.

REPRESSION OF FREE THOUGHT: This one and the next one sometimes make people get very defensive and upset and yet it is important. I must qualify it first. This is a critique of systems in power. It is not labeling all individuals in this way. I know there are many very admirable and moral atheists as well as some smart ones that have helped much in science. But, in every case that we know about where atheism was the official view of a state, there was extremely serious repression of freedom of speech, worship and quite a few other kinds of freedom. Whether it was the French Revolution with it's goddess of reason or the Khmer Rouge who killed all but 200 of 20,000 Christians in their country, or China which imprisoned (and killed) countless 1000s of Christians for the sole crime of wanting to worship God, nations with atheism as their official state view have been extremely repressive. They often say that they are free thinkers. But, in documented history, when they gain power, this only means free thought for those who think like them. It's similar in academia in America. When atheists and secularists got into control, they soon did a huge amount to ban almost all evidence for religion or anything pointing in that direction (as well as a number of other things as well).

It's true that Christianity has been repressive at times, the majority of those cases would be the Catholic church which is one of the biggest enemies of the Bible (no organization has burned and killed more people for reading their Bibles than atheism and Catholicism. In addition, major foundations of Catholicism are in direct conflict with Bible principles, esp. their official stand that the church can set aside and change the Bible as it wills. This is in direct contradiction of what Jesus said in Mark 7:5-13 that when church leaders set aside God's laws for their own traditions, they are worshipping in vain). But, it was Protestants like Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson and others who pioneered the concept of freedom of religion and that the govt. had no right to punish anyone for their views about God (or views that God didn't exist).

Whether you like it or not, your freedom to be atheists or evolutionists came directly from people who said that their foundation of religious truth was "The Bible and the Bible only". The world owes Protestants a lot for this and many other contributions to society.

HUMAN RIGHTS: There are many human rights and human values that have been pioneered by people who honored the Bible. Jews and Christians pioneered the abolishment movements, orphanages, public education and many, many more. Go to this website for a great overview of some of the values that the Bible gave to our world and the contemporary culture of it's time ranging from the right to education, concepts of justice and law to the value of life and many others.
http://international.aish.com/seminars/worldperfect/

The vast majority of all leading abolitionists for the last 2 centuries were Christians (esp. Quakers). Christians have also been at the forefront of NUMEROUS other human rights campaigns as well (such as www.one.org which started by some Christians finally taking the economic principles of the Bible seriously and advocating canceling the debt of poor countries).

"Appoint teachers for children in every country, province and city. In any city that does not have a school excommunicate the people of the city until they get teachers for the children. If they don't, destroy that city because the world exists only because of the breath of children studying." MISHNA TORAH, "The Laws of Learning Torah" 2:1 in Quote 22

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation ... fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations."
(John Adams, 2nd president of the United States)

RACISM: Evolution has been used in many places to promote racism and racist crimes. Darwin himself seems to have been quite sympathetic and more advanced than some in his generation in terms of race relations. He should be commended for his sympathy towards other races. But, he also wrote these chilling words: "At some future period"¦ the civilized races of man will"¦At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." This prediction and the whole idea of struggle and survival of the fittest, etc. strongly encouraged people to think that some races were of higher and lower value and to be more. In Tasmania, whites killed or drove out almost all aborigines treating them as much lower class human beings. Darwin thought it was cruel, but unavoidable and an advantage. He said: "This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable" and now Tasmania "enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population" (The Descent of Man, chapter 6, The Voyage of the Beagle, chapter 19, pp 430,424).

The fact that evolution has been used extensively to promote racism as well as eugenics does NOT mean it's wrong or unscientific. But, it DOES mean that we should demand the highest level of evidence from it before requiring everyone to study it.

In contrast to this, the Bible wrote very explicitly that we should NEVER oppress foreigners and that in Jesus, Israelis, foreigners, males and females, slave and free were all equal.
Exodus 23:9 "You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it's like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt."
Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."
These verses and others led to Christians campaigning against slavery and succeeding in making England the first nation ever in history to ban chattel slavery as illegal.
http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/index.php (an inspiring movie&some trailers on this)
http://www.ttf.org/index/journal/detail ... erforce-2/, http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... force.html

Richard Dawkins himself is on record saying that evolution should NOT be followed in society, only in science. The problem is that when you teach it in classrooms, people are going to make logical connections and apply it to society whether we like it or not.

To be sure, there has been racism among Christians to a degree such as anti-semitism. But, this did not come from the Bible at all. There are quite a few things that Christians have unfortunately adopted from other cultures or pagan science and philosophy, much to their loss and embarrassment and this is one of them. The Bible explicitly told them to treat other people as equals and to love the Jews. Tragically, some Christians in the past, like some today, chose to reject the Bible and follow their human culture and opinions.

But, evolution made the problem quite a bit worse. Dr. Stephen Gould, late professor at Harvard and a leading evolutionist wrote that,
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Stephen Jay Gould, 'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

Evolution has been used in many regimes to do some terrible things. There is MUCH more evidence than this and from MANY places, but Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionist wrote: " The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Evolution & Ethics, p. 28. Here's strong proof of that (and there is MUCH more than this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jon7hnQSBcs

Again, it is also true that religion has been used to do some very terrible things just like evolution has and atheism has (and so have science and politics and other things). I will be quick to admit that AND I deeply regret it and apologize for this. Religion, atheism and evolution should be held to a high AND EQUAL standard before we allow them to be taught in schools because they have been used in these ways.
"People ask if religion&science are not opposed to one another?They are:in the sense that the thumb&the finger on my hand are opposed...It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." Alexis Carrel,Nobel Prize in Medicine
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:25 pm
dotoreePosts: 171Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:38 pm Gender: Male

Post CRUCIAL HEALTH PRINCIPLES OF THE BIBLE MILLENIA AHEAD OF SCI

Aronra said "we can discuss your assertion of "observable & directly testable scientific evidence of Bible science with numerous extremely practical benefits for billions of lives". If you intend to remain completely honest, then this will be a very short discussion.
--

Here's the first step of that, and it's confirmed by several major secular scientific organizations. See the links, esp. ted.com. There's a very key point here...those who trusted the Bible experienced crucial benefits in these areas while those who doubted lost out.

These were not gained by trial and error either. Why? Many/most were:
1) Not known by the Egyptian culture or other cultures of the time and
2) The Israelites had been slaves with no chances for education. Moses wrote these right after leaving Egypt. There was no time for trial and error.


CRUCIAL HEALTH PRINCIPLES IN THE BIBLE: The Bible listed crucial and specific principles about health ~3000 years ago, millennia ahead of the best scientists. These principles and the work of Christian scientists based on them (such as Nightingale, Mendel, Pasteur, Norman Borlaug (who alone saved about a billion lives)) have literally saved billions of lives. Crucial for YOU right now is the fact that people who follow the Bible's health principles (most Christains do not) RIGHT NOW, will live ~10 years more longer than the average. Those are multiple science Nobel Prize winning achievements by any standard. NIH, National Geographic and Blue zones all confirm that Adventists are among the 4 longest living people groups in the world and live 5 years longer on average than even the Okinawans because many of them follow health principles from the Bible (and some follow what God told another messenger of his in the 1800s that was a century ahead of the best scientists knowledge in many areas). Only ~1/2 of Adventists follow the Bible's ideal diet which is not a law...but most follow the health rules God laid down). What are these principles? Here are ONLY 6 of them:

1) BLOODLETTING: For over 2,000 years, blood letting was the most common medical procedure (see: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/brought ... tting.aspx). The Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Mayans, Aztecs and many others all practiced it based on the idea that the blood could be harmful and too much of it could cause sicknesses. The Bible states, "...for the life of the body is in its blood." Leviticus 17:11 The Bible saying that life is in the blood in DIRECT contradiction of Greek medicinal knowledge that said blood was harmful and needed to be removed from the body when you were sick to get rid of the sickness. In the 19th century, doctors would recommend this and send people to barbers to have bleeding done. This is why many barbershops have the red and white striped poles. The red represents blood. The white the tourniquet and the pole represents the stick patients would squeeze to make the veins stand out. George Washington, America's first president asked to be bled heavily after he got a throat infection. Doctors drew 1.7 liters of blood out of him. That's about 1/3 of the blood in our bodies. Did that help him? No, it did not. He died from that throat infection. He probably would have lived if his doctors had followed the Bible's wisdom. Some who followed the Greek theory of blood were Christians. But sometimes Christians have been ignorant of what the Bible teaches & also unfortunately sometimes even Christians have trusted man's ideas above the Bible and many tragedies have happened.

2) THE IDEAL DIET IS VEGETARIAN: In Genesis, God gave people a diet that was 100% vegetarian, fruit, grains, herbs/veggies and nuts. (Genesis 1:29, 3:18). Adventists are the only Christian denomination I am aware of that have taken Bible health principles like this seriously. God said he would bless those who followed his laws in different ways. This has come true for Adventists. They have 50-80% less disease in every area. They also are one of the 4 longest living cultures in the world and some say they are the very longest. The result of a sterling study on ~70,000 of them for over 30 years is that they live ~10 years longer than the average person and . For most of history until the last decade or two (and even now), nearly all experts, scientists and doctors thought that meat (and usually lots of it) was absolutely essential for good health. But, researchers studying Blue Zones (areas where people live to 100 much more often and ~10+ years longer than the average) have found that ALL four of the longest living people groups on the planet are ~90-100% vegetarians (Go to the site http://www.bluezones.com and read the original research on this). 3 of these 4 groups are Christian groups (and the 4th, Okinawa, has been caught up in a scandal with many of its old people actually being dead, but the family collecting their pensions for them). This is thoroughly documented by secular researchers at National Geographic, the National Institute for Health, the National Cancer Institute, Blue Zones and many other researchers. You can see a summary of the Blue Zones research here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_h ... e_100.html (see esp. the section starting at 11:30 on Adventists, America's longest living people group, but the whole thing is good.)

It has also been reported by National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html

10 extra years of life is nothing to sneeze at. ANY secular scientist who found a way to extend life by an AVERAGE of 10 years (individual cases are sometimes far more than that) would win the Nobel prize. But, in our culture, the bias and prejudice against religion, esp. in academia, public education and media, is so strong, that it's almost impossible for religious achievements in science to be considered fairly.

Since Adventists have such an incredibly longer life span than the average, the National Cancer Institute has decided to fund "Adventist Health Studies 2" on 100,000 Adventists to figure out more of the details of why they live so long. It's not just quantity either. It's quality. There are 97 year olds who do 20 surgeries a month, 103 year olds who go waterskiing, 104 year old who volunteer at 7 charities and many more like that. See the TED video above for pictures.

Here are over 300 peer reviewed research studies on Seventh Day Adventists showing some of the details of why we live so much longer than anyone else.
http://www.llu.edu/public-health/health/abstracts.page?

A report came out recently, largest ever, linking meat eating to cancer and a number of other diseases. Summary is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

PETA (which is not a Christian group) has NUMEROUS statistics on why meat eating is really bad for health and our world.
http://www.goveg.com/theissues.asp See especially the sublinks such as: http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

Peta and the site above have NUMEROUS studies proving conclusively that a veggie diet is best in most circumstances. Again, the Bible stated this LONG, LONG before science figured it out and long before anyone else said it.

Einstein as well wrote: "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." He's right..but only a couple millenia after the Bible:).

3) DANGER OF ANIMAL FAT AND BLOOD: God warned people in Leviticus 3:17/ Leviticus 17:12, "You must never eat any fat or blood. This is a permanent law for you." Why? Animal fat is the #1 cause of heart attacks and eating blood causes many infectious diseases. A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is very risky and causes serious diseases and sometimes death.

4) HEALTHY VS. UNHEALTHY SEAFOOD: Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales (Leviticus 11:9-12). We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... view&ID=90

5) HEALTHY VS. UNHEALTHY MEATS. MUCH disease such as mad cow disease, cancer, heart disease and others could be avoided or greatly reduced by being vegetarian OR by avoiding the unclean meats as defined by the Bible. The Bible instructs us to eat ONLY animals that chew the cud AND have divided hooves and to NEVER eat pork. (Deuteronomy chapter 11 & 14:8). Reader's Digest had an article years ago stating that pork is the cause of up to 40 diseases in human beings. Bacon, is in fact one of the worst type of processed meats you could eat for your health. According to a 2006 study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1177, eating bacon five or more times a week was linked to increasing your risk of bladder cancer by 59 percent. There are MANY more studies showing the health dangers of pork.

Dr. Macht published research in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, published by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. In a study entitled "An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV". Dr. Macht tested extracts of meats of the various "clean" and "unclean" animals according to the Dietary Law, including 54 kinds of fish, using a standard toxicological test. The results were absolutely amazing for a scientific study! Every single animal meat that the Dietary Law said was inedible tested out as toxic in Dr. Macht's experiments. That's a 100% correlation, something quite rare in scientific experiments.

6) QUARANTINE/KNOWLEDGE OF BACTERIA. Long before man understood the principles of quarantine or knew about the existence of bacteria, God gave very specific instructions to Israel to help them identify contagious diseases and isolate people with them until they were cured (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). These instructions required a knowledge of bacteria and how disease spreads. But, if God had told the ancients about bacteria, they would have ridiculed the Bible just as the top scientists in Pasteur's day ridiculed him for claiming that things we can't see could kill a person.

In the middle ages, huge numbers of people were dying because of terrible diseases that were spreading rapidly. The doctors and scientists had no answers. Dr. George Rosen writes,
"Leadership was taken by the church, as the physicians had nothing to offer. The church took as its guiding principle the concept of contagion as embodied in the Old Testament...This idea and its practical consequences are defined with great clarity in the Book of Leviticus." George Rosen, M.D., History of Public Health, pp. 63-65.

Finally, people followed the Bible's ideas on quarantine and this was effective at stopping the epidemic.
"People ask if religion&science are not opposed to one another?They are:in the sense that the thumb&the finger on my hand are opposed...It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." Alexis Carrel,Nobel Prize in Medicine
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:30 pm
dotoreePosts: 171Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:38 pm Gender: Male

Post 2 initial short proofs of Creation science

P.S. to last message. Seems that no one had the guts to put their money where their mouths were in betting that the Bible had practical benefits for modern people. That's been the norm for most atheists unfortunately.

I commented on Aronra's video first because he started off with a false comparison fallacy...probably unintentionally, but it is a false comparison. Again, if you pit gravity against string theory, dark matter, etc. you are not doing science correctly and can throw away valuable ideas. Aronra like most pitted the act of creation against the concept of evolution. Read below to see why this can't be done according to the rules of science. This is a short version. I have a much more detailed longer version including several quotes from Blyth's original research paper that I can quote if needed. Wikipedia misrepresents him some.

====SHORT VERSION OF PROOFS FOR CREATION SCIENCE THAT ARE 100% TESTABLE & SCIENTIFIC====
When we are looking at rival concepts in science, the way science has always been done is to look at the evidence follow the weight of evidence wherever it leads. This has produced numerous incredible advances in knowledge many of which are very beneficial. But, if people make false comparisons or use double standards, this seriously distorts science. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently in the debate between creation and evolution. How? People often claim that creation and evolution are rivals. This is partly true, but the way evolution and creation are compared is often a serious fallacy that and compromises the objectivity and integrity of the scientific process. Critics of creation will often try to pit the act of creation by God against Darwin's hypothesis of evolution. This is grossly unfair and makes objective scientific comparison impossible.

To compare Darwinian evolution to the act of creation is just as fallacious as it would be to compare micro-evolution to abiogenesis. Forcing these concepts to be rivals shows either serious ignorance or intentional deceit. In science you would never compare the theory of gravity to the concept of quarks and say that since we can see gravity happening, the idea of quarks must be false. This would be stupid. Why? These two ideas don't deal with the same question and there is no intelligence in pitting them as rivals. Pitting the act of creation (which deals with the origin of life) against Darwinian evolution (which deals with how life changes AFTER it has started) is no different from the above fallacy. Let's summarize the true rivals briefly:

A) The act of creation is dealing with the question of the ORIGIN of life. So, we must find a competing view that tries to explain the origin of life. The two most common are spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. The Creationist view is that life always comes from other life (biogenesis) and usually similar life so life must have originated from other life, God. Atheists for millennia have embraced the ideas of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis as "scientific foundations" for their worldview.

B) Darwinian natural selection deals with how life changes on this planet AFTER it has started. Many don't know this fact, but creationist natural selection includes evolution from the species to the family level and was published LONG before Darwin's book by creation scientists such as Edward Blyth, Wallace and others. It was also referred to in Genesis. Darwin's difference from PRIOR creation science is that he speculated that evolution could go WAY past the family level, order, class, phyla and astoundingly even kingdom level. (NOTE: Natural selection was published in British science journals by creationist Edward Blyth LONG before Darwin wrote his book. Creationists, atheists and other evolutionists criticized Darwin for serious plagiarism in the first edition of his book. Darwin actually stole his idea and didn't credit Blyth for inventing natural selection. See http://www.thedarwinpapers.com, chapter 2 for detailed evidence about Edward Blyth.)

ALL 4 of these ideas are legitimate scientific hypotheses. What does the weight of evidence from solid science and careful observations tell us? In A (the act of creation vs. abiogenesis/spontaneous generation), we KNOW that there are MANY BILLIONS of cases of life ALWAYS coming from more intelligent life. ALWAYS. There is NOT EVEN ONE case where life has come from non-life (that would violate the scientific law of biogenesis actually). Furthermore spontaneous generation, a cousin of abiognesis, has been soundly rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience after a reign of ~1500 years. The weight of observable and testable evidence in this competition falls almost entirely on the creation science side to anyone who is objective.


In B (creationist natural selection (changes from species to family levels) vs. Darwinian natural selection (species to kingdom levels)), YET AGAIN, there are billions of observable cases for creationist natural selection and NONE for Darwin's distinguishing ideas that separate it from prior creation science. Darwinism MUST demonstrate many cases of evolution beyond the family boundary in order to become anything more than a hypothesis. Anything less falls ENTIRELY within the creation science theory.

There are some testable predictions of the Darwinian hypothesis to be sure. But, most hypotheses have some accurate predictions. Spontaneous generation did. The geocentric model did too. But, they were wrong. Having some fulfilled predictions doesn't guarantee your idea is correct, not by a long shot.

Sometimes creationists have been criticized for not having a precise definition of species. Scientists (BOTH atheistic and religious) have difficulty defining species, genus, family, order, class and phylum precisely as you can see if you check those entries on wikipedia. For species alone, I saw 15 different definitions of species at one time and scientists sometimes disagree on what defines different species. These are definitions that are the best and most natural definitions for species in my opinion (partly adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species)

SAME SPECIES: Biological organisms that frequently mate in nature and produce fertile offspring would be in the same species. Change occurring within this boundary would be species level change and well within creation science limits. "Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids, such as a mule or hinny, are not considered to be in the same species."

SAME GENUS: If an organism evolved into a position where it didn't normally mate with the original species naturally, but could still be mated by putting a male and female together with no others, the would be a change into a separate genus (This level is sort of like Mendel's work in cross-pollination). EX: Hybrids like ligers would fall in this category. They have parents with the same genus but of different species. The ends of ring species could be an example of change into another genus since they don't normally breed in nature, but could mate if put together in the right conditions without other mating possibilities. Change occurring within this boundary would be genus level change and still within creation science levels.

SAME FAMILY: 2 living things that can be mated using techniques like artificial insemination (no cutting and splicing up of DNA, etc.). Change occurring within this boundary would be family level change and still within creation science levels.

SUMMARY: Darwinism needs to find large numbers of cases of speciation causing change beyond the point where 2 life forms can be artificially inseminated and produce offspring. It can use bacteria or insects or whatever"¦but we need to find many cases showing that this actually happens. Speciation at less than this level is within creation science levels and does nothing to prove Darwin's hypotheses. So far, we have not even one example like this. If Darwinists claim that it takes too long to see this happen, they are admitting that it's not testable scientifically. They can have faith in extrapolations if they wish, but it's not hard science.

These are just 2 examples of how the creation science theory beats the evolutionist hypothesis easily when there are fair standards, fair comparisons and when you follow the weight of evidence.

Unfortunately, many atheists and evolutionists have created a fixed playing field (and even a few creationists have been caught in this trap of false comparisons). Some have done this unintentionally or through following ignorant traditions or possibly others deceit. There may be some who are intentionally trying to deceive people too, but I prefer to assume that most are innocent and honest until I have clear proof otherwise. Most that I have talked with have just never realized that the act of creation and Darwinian evolution are not dealing with the same scientific question. But, the truth is that in general, the only way evolution can win a scientific contest is by using false comparisons, double standards, straw men or things of that nature.

Another common example of this is ridiculing creation science as an old myth and useless because of its age. The age of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with it's accuracy. Newton's 3 laws of motion are centuries old, yet still true. Some Greek and Islamic concepts of science are over a millennia old, yet still true. Evolution itself is a 150 year old hypothesis and should obviously be given up if they were consistent in applying this principle of ridiculing something due to its age.

Another fact is that creation science is actually quite a young science, as in mybe ~50-60 years old or so. Christians were busy building schools and hospitals all over the world, pioneering many practical branches of science and leading many human rights movements. For centuries, most people thought creation science was the only way live could have started and there wasn't much of a controversy about it. So, Christian scientists didn't put too much effort into proving the case. It's only in the last few decades esp. after the Supreme Court banned creation science from classrooms for political reasons (NOT scientific reasons), that Christians have realized that we need to do some serious scientific work to show that creation science has more evidence than evolution. We are catching up fast and I think there's a high chance that we will see evolution discarded as pseudoscience within my lifetime, possibly within the next couple decades. Many others feel the same. Pasteur predicted the demise of Darwinism and that day is coming closer by leaps and bounds:
"Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory."
Loius Pasteur, The Literary Digest (18 October 1902).

The fact is that creation scientists like Pasteur did numerous experiments and worked very hard to prove that spontaneous generation does not happen and is not scientific. They challenged the assumptions of millennia of science and did the hard work to find the truth. Anyone who believes in the scientific laws of biogenesis and natural selection and numerous other aspects of science owes them a tremendous debt for what they have helped us understand. Those who honor the legacy of Pasteur and Darwin and 1000s of other great scientific minds in challenging establishments have a duty to challenge the current establishment for setting up a fallacy of false comparisons that is causing millions to ignore the weight of evidence of science.
-----------
The next article is from an evolutionist and illustrates how momentous this paradigm shift from spontaneous generation to biogenesis actually was and is very insightful.

THE COLLAPSE OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION STORY
George Wald, professor at Harvard university (and an evolutionist) writes about this in a well done article. It's a critical point in this discussion because without abiogenesis being conclusively proven, atheism is one of the most faith based worldviews on the planet (abiogenesis is basically a sophisticated version of spontaneous generation, just add lots of time). Read what this world-renowned evolutionist says about this topic.
"One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Men are used to making things; it is a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account in the opening chapters of Genesis. There we are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, God brought forth living creatures- first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and finally man.
The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one 's senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry.
But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries, this belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. First the Italian Francisco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then in the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke the seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to show that the air inside the flask had not been vitiated.
This problem was finally solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860, with a simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out in a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria, and molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only rarely reached the broth. In such a flask, the broth seldom was contaminated; usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.
We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.
For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation one has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine), "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46; reprinted on p. 307-320, A Treasury of Science, Fourth Revised Edition, Harlow Shapley et al., eds., Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. p 309.

Bryan's note: I would take issue with his assumption that the "more rational elements of society" took a more naturalistic view. Rationality is supposed to have testable support and abiogenesis esp. does not. Note two things:
1) Dr. Wald says that time makes miracles. That's a 100% faith based statement. While this was written a few decades ago (Darwin's book was written ~150 years ago), almost nothing has changed in terms of observable conclusive scientific proof for abiogenesis which again is just a sophisticated version of spontaneous generation. I have listened to most of the best hypotheses proposed by evolutionists about how abiogenesis might have happened. They don't have anything observable except some chemical recombinations into slightly more complex molecules. But, that's something we teach high school chemistry students all the time already and that's child's play compared to the enormous and vast task of devising a living thing that can move, digest, process things and replicate.
2) Dr. Wald says that the only alternative to spontaneous generation (or it's modern form abiogenesis) is "to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position"¦ Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." When even atheists admit things like this, you've got to wonder why we are banning creation science from classrooms. It obviously can't be for scientific reasons. It has to be for philosophical and apriori biased reasons. This of course is a direct violation of a crucial foundation of science, to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
"People ask if religion&science are not opposed to one another?They are:in the sense that the thumb&the finger on my hand are opposed...It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." Alexis Carrel,Nobel Prize in Medicine
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:35 pm
Anachronous RexLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 2008Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:07 pmLocation: Kansas City, MO Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

:facepalm: Copypasta.
Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Much too small. That's a problem of the birth canal, I'm very sorry to say for those that like their birth canals... tight.
-C. Hitchens.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:37 pm
dotoreePosts: 171Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:38 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

borrofburi wrote:This discussion will go nowhere until definitions are established... I know some of you don't like the definition bit, but if you don't define things precisely we'll end up with goalpost moving.

dotoree, I can't help but notice you continue to fail to address my post where I critique your critique of AronRa's definitions and say why I certainly don't accept your proposed modifications.

--
I've been responding to a horde of things...was up till 7am last night just responding to all you guys...I must have missed yours. I try to respond to most, but can't respond to every detail. The basic answer to you though is probably this:
1) Most of my definitions were from the dictionary and thus much more objective than Aronra's, esp. in the religious definitions.
2) It's a basic essential that I have the right to define what I believe in just as you do. The definitions Aronra used about creationism and some other terms do not come anywhere close to representing my views or that of most Christians accurately. And neither were they accurate with the dictionary.

I'll try to go back and check, but have a big day of classes tomorrow, and can't do a 7am night again. Sorry. Happy reading while I'm gone.
Bryan
"People ask if religion&science are not opposed to one another?They are:in the sense that the thumb&the finger on my hand are opposed...It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." Alexis Carrel,Nobel Prize in Medicine
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:39 pm
dotoreePosts: 171Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:38 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Copypasta.


Yes, Anachronous Rex. You're right.
1) I copied and pasted from things that I HAVE written from a book I'm working on. If that's wrong, you'll have to throw most authors who put sections of their books online for free in jail. You MIGHT ask questions before making false accusations like the above.

2) I do in certain parts cite researchers, experts, etc. who did the primary research or who have significant experience in relevant areas. This is a foundational part of any scholarly or academic paper that is trying to persuade others of it's point.

I frankly can't believe that you and many other atheists don't understand this very basic aspect of academia. Have you ever read a research paper? One of my part time jobs has been editing them as well as teaching them.

Inquire first before jumping to apriori conclusions.

Bryan
"People ask if religion&science are not opposed to one another?They are:in the sense that the thumb&the finger on my hand are opposed...It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped." Alexis Carrel,Nobel Prize in Medicine
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:44 pm
YfelsungUser avatarPosts: 514Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:26 amLocation: Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

I'm going to try and explain this as simply as I can.

You do not believe in manticores. You do not believe in manticores because there is no evidence. You don't need proof that manticores aren't real, the lack of proof that they are real is sufficient. You were born without belief in manticores, it is the default position. If no one was ever informed of the manticore, they would not believe in them and this is default. No evidence required.

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in God because there is no evidence. I don't need proof that God isn't real, the lack of proof that God is real is sufficient. I was born without belief in God, it is my default position. If no one ever informed me of God, I wouldn't even have the concept. Not believing in God doesn't require evidence.

The default scientific position is that A is not real until evidence for A is observed.

Hence, atheism is the default position because it's how you are born, without belief in God.

If atheism wasn't the default, then no one would need to teach anyone about God, they'd just believe. Everyone is born an atheist, many of us never stop being one.

I have never believed in God.
Nihilism: turning "fuck it" into a philosophy since 1818.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:45 pm
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3508Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

dotoree wrote:
borrofburi wrote:This discussion will go nowhere until definitions are established... I know some of you don't like the definition bit, but if you don't define things precisely we'll end up with goalpost moving.

dotoree, I can't help but notice you continue to fail to address my post where I critique your critique of AronRa's definitions and say why I certainly don't accept your proposed modifications.

--
I've been responding to a horde of things...was up till 7am last night just responding to all you guys...I must have missed yours. I try to respond to most, but can't respond to every detail. The basic answer to you though is probably this:
1) Most of my definitions were from the dictionary and thus much more objective than Aronra's, esp. in the religious definitions.
2) It's a basic essential that I have the right to define what I believe in just as you do. The definitions Aronra used about creationism and some other terms do not come anywhere close to representing my views or that of most Christians accurately. And neither were they accurate with the dictionary.

I'll try to go back and check, but have a big day of classes tomorrow, and can't do a 7am night again. Sorry. Happy reading while I'm gone.
Bryan


(1) it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that dictionaries do NOT define words for scientific contexts. It has also been pointed out to you that dictionary definitions are not useful for clear debates. Moreover there is a difference in quality of dictionary definitions... For example the 8th definition from dictionary.com will have much much less value than the first definition from the OED.
(2) That's fine, believe what you want, present what you believe, but do it within an agreed upon language.


dotoree wrote:P.S. to last message. Seems that no one had the guts to put their money where their mouths were in betting that the Bible had practical benefits for modern people.

How juvenile can you be? This isn't the school playground.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:52 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Quick review in passing:

Any connections made and paradigms introduced between the Bible and current thinking are merely correlations, which really prove nothing in themselves. They might make an interesting TLC program, though.

I dispute the idea that Creation Science is testible, unless you can determine a test for a supreme being.

The theory of evolution is somewhat testable when in combination with anthropology and paleontology. But as with all science, it is a theory and has not really claimed any monopoly on truth. That's why theories are constantly 'evolving' so to speak, and why there are so many new labels for them.

Spontaneous generation is a very, very, old, outdated theory. I think it was Lamark who introduced it, and yes, it is a bit absurd. But Lamark was 18th century too, and so there's little in his theory that really can be applied to current evolution theory.

Let me ask you this quickly: do you accept the scientific classification of human beings as animals and primates? Or do you dispute our current system?
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:56 pm
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2010Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

You call the null hypothesis a hypothesis, and not a fact or law, and you expect to be taken seriously?

Do you even know what a null hypothesis is? You can't, because you couldn't make such an idiotic statement if you did.

Your posts read like the gish gallop. Hit 100 points in quick succession knowing that it won't be possible for anyone to refute them all in the time and space allotted. Pick one and I'll show it to be bullshit.
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:57 pm
YfelsungUser avatarPosts: 514Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:26 amLocation: Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Also, it should be mentioned, even if you could prove that living Biblically leads to a better society, that doesn't make it true.

Truth is truth. If a universe without God is a horrible, ugly, disgusting, amoral place then that's what the universe is.

Even if the truth is ugly, that's not an argument for the beautiful lie being better.

We're sacks of dirty water and meat floating around on a ball of dirt, it's not pretty but it's what the evidence points at.
Nihilism: turning "fuck it" into a philosophy since 1818.
Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:03 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Yfelsung wrote:Also, it should be mentioned, even if you could prove that living Biblically leads to a better society, that doesn't make it true.

Truth is truth. If a universe without God is a horrible, ugly, disgusting, amoral place then that's what the universe is.

Even if the truth is ugly, that's not an argument for the beautiful lie being better.

We're sacks of dirty water and meat floating around on a ball of dirt, it's not pretty but it's what the evidence points at.


:lol:

You're so good at persuasion, you know.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:07 pm
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2010Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: See someone try to defend creationism honestly

Also, aren't Isopods beautiful :D
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:16 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 5 of 48
 [ 952 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests