Re: I don't laugh at atheists. They have accepted indoctrinations.

swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 22, 10:03 pm, Chris Bell  wrote:
> 
>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22, 4:36 pm, Chris Bell  wrote:
>>>
>>>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
> <*snip*>
> 

*snip*
> 
> 
> I don't *****s the writings of the Creation scientists as leading to a
> new 'Dark Age' of unreason. Their writings are  very reasonable, and
> scientifically based, giving God the glory for the amazing scientific
> facts of the Universe and life on this planet.
> 
That is your opinion. It is not shared by many others. Most scientists 
think there writings are unreasonable and not scientifically based.

> We must keep
> 
>>>>the teaching of science quite separate from the teaching of religion.
>>
> They do have inormation from the Judeo-Christian scriptures in many of
> their articles, but there is much information that is of a scientific
> nature. It would seem to me the evolutionists (either atheistic or
> theistic) don't want opposition.
> 
No-one wants opposition, but scientists expect to receive just that from 
every other scientist working in the same area. It is the basis of 
science - to try to prove the other scientist wrong!
> 
>>>Originally, if  (I will make it suppositional), God created then
>>>Almighty God deserves praise. If He didn't create then the status quo
>>>is acceptable.
>>
>>Few scientists have any view on the process of creation. Those that do
>>have various views, which includes that of a god. What most have a view
>>on is evolution, which almost all accept, and that creation did not
>>happen 6000 years ago but much earlier, as we can reliably date many
>>things to billions of years ago.
>>
> 
> Radiometric Dating  Questions and Answers
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/
> 
I was not referring only to radiometric dating. The age of stars and 
galaxies has been determined in many different ways.
> 
>>>I would be of the opinion that Evolutionists are at a disadvantage,
>>>which, of course, they will not accept, that as living comes from
>>>living there had to be a First Cause that was living.
>>
>>What does this first cause nonsense have to do with it? It is not
>>christian and not scientific but comes from Greek philosophy. It is
>>totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
> 
> The Hewbrew scriptures (at first in an oral tradition, then written on
> clay tablets and later on parchment), came before the Greek
> philosophers.
> 
But there is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures about first causes.
> 
>>BTW do you think that God is a living being in some sense of that word
>>living? On what do you base your conclusion?
>>
> 
> Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God was living. Living comes
> from living. Living does not come from non-living.
> 
So in what sense was God Jesus' father? In a biological sense, so that 
God has sperm?
> 
>>>Although I have
>>>not read all the Creation stories of all the indigenous cultures of
>>>the world I have read a number of them and they had a consenus that a
>>>Creator brought about life in the world. I need to check back on those
>>>because it is some time since I investigated that aspect of this
>>>issue.
>>
>>What do indigenous creation stories have to do with science?
>>
> 
> Similarities with the Bible can give a common beginning.
> Aboriginal legends tell of the Great Spirit, Byamee, who created and
> there are flood stories of quite immensity - one on ABC television
> yesterday - but of a frog who drank all the water so the land was in
> drought and how the Aboriginal ancestors provoked the frog to spurt
> out all the water. The further from the source the greater possobilty
> of corruption.
> 
> My father used to tell us of a story of the First World War. The
> message to be sent through the trenches was 'Send reinforcements, we
> are going to advance' which by the time it reached the end of the line
> was 'Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance!' - whether it
> was an actual occurrence or a made-up story to make the troops realise
> how im****tant it was to be careful in relaying messages, I do not
> know. Just of interest here.
> 
> Gladys Swager
> 
Chris