tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post9079140789311707066..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Oh My God!Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53717722256959789462009-10-21T15:39:36.640-04:002009-10-21T15:39:36.640-04:00For all of you out there that don't believe in...For all of you out there that don't believe in the Bible or in God, this is all I have to say and not in a rude or "so there!" manner: How do you know that the wind exists? You can't see it. I thought atheists didn't believe in things they couldn't see with their own eyes. We believe that the wind exists because we can see it's effects as the leaves in tree move, or a piece of paper blows through the street, or we feel it against our skin. In the same way we can see God's effects. I truly don't believe that all of a sudden Earth, flowers, water, animals, and humans just popped out of thin air.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66185492081179962962008-02-09T17:13:00.000-05:002008-02-09T17:13:00.000-05:00Wow! 72 comments, and nobody Googled the pollsters...Wow! 72 comments, and nobody Googled the pollsters? As it happens, Barna Group has a pretty clear mission statement: "We seek to use our strengths in partnership with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States."<BR/><BR/>That information is, of course, not enough to invalidate the results -- but perhaps their methodology should be more closely examined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3838191354992846952008-01-02T14:34:00.000-05:002008-01-02T14:34:00.000-05:00"68 percent believed Jesus used five loaves of bre..."68 percent believed Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000."<BR/><BR/>That's no miracle, he was the low bidder and received the catering contract for Air Canada.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78861838939354523072007-12-31T10:37:00.000-05:002007-12-31T10:37:00.000-05:00demanding god to be responsible by special creati...demanding god to be responsible by special creatio for the origin of every living and fossil type is as vulgar as demanding that miracles be performed every day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13192967938448032302007-12-30T21:01:00.000-05:002007-12-30T21:01:00.000-05:00I am always amazed at the emotional energy investe...I am always amazed at the emotional energy invested it these kinds of discussions on both the "scientific" and "religous" sides. Defining the external universe appears to be no less emotionally dificult than defining the internal universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56100385693892046612007-12-30T07:34:00.000-05:002007-12-30T07:34:00.000-05:00Neal, I'd really like to hear your answer to the q...Neal, I'd really like to hear your answer to the questions posed by Topo: ...<BR/><BR/>You consider yourself to be reasonably intelligent and yet you reject the fundamental concept of biology that has been worked out by science professionals over a period of 150 years. <BR/><BR/>How do you justify the fact that all those scientists can be so wrong while only people like you are right? Doesn't it bother you that those who are opposed to evolution tend to be non-scientists while those who support it are the ones who study it for a living?<BR/><BR/>Are there any other groups of professionals who are as stupid as scientists, in your opinion? Have doctors misunderstood the fundamentals of medicine? Are lawyers ignorant of the law? Do engineers not know how to build bridges?<BR/><BR/>I assume that it's only professional scientists who you disparage. Why is that? What do you think we're doing wrong in our universities that we educate everyone else but fail to teach the "correct" fundamentals of biology? Is there something odd about biology Professors that makes them so incompetent?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47602143926584955642007-12-30T02:11:00.000-05:002007-12-30T02:11:00.000-05:00It's not that you are dumb; I think you have some ...It's not that you are dumb; I think you have some problems with being honest to yourself as to what you know and your own religious indulgence. Evolutionary science is not some kind of atheistic contamination.. You have fooled yourself about something you really have no idea. <BR/><BR/>Since you (evidently) are not an expert, you may ask yourself how and why evolution has produced so much academic research. Ask yourself why ID, no matter how loudly it claims revolution, continues to produce no peer-reviewed research. It is a pop cultural-phenomenon, but academically, it is non-existent. <BR/><BR/>Our similarities and differences with Gorillas and chimps, the fossil forms like all the Australopithecines, Homo habilis, H erectus, H. neanderthalensis... what do you think is the SCIENTIFIC way of explaining to these data? <BR/>That god was snapoing his fingers each time we have a new species? Or is it common ancestry and branching (for instance, we share a more recent common ancestor with H. erectus than with the chimpanzee? <BR/><BR/>Indeed, how do new species originate if not by reproduction from some previously existing species? is godly intervention a proper scientific explanation?<BR/><BR/>Evolution is simply the proper scientific way of combining what we see in the fossil record with what we know about reproduction, descent and modification. It is truly very silly to think there is any atheistic motivation. It's just unscientific to assume anything else. Why invoke a miracle if there is a perfectly good scientific explanation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79327250758815516522007-12-29T23:50:00.000-05:002007-12-29T23:50:00.000-05:00"The difference with you creationists, is that you..."The difference with you creationists, is that you are too dumb to KNOW when you ARE charging against sound, proper scientific knowledge."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am an accomplished professional, and don't consider myself to be a prototypical "creationist". My perception is that most people that I associated with through time do not consider me "dumb". Even though I will honestly admit, that I am not a "scientific professional" I believe that I have a relatively high level of scientific knowledge and have the analytical abilities required for unbiased interpretation of such information. After all is "said and done" I just can't "buy" into the <BR/>"Darwinian" or what seems to be called "Neo-Darwinian" Interpretation of the scientifically derived data at this point in time. And my informed opinion is one that says, it isn't going to get any better for the paradigm as time goes on, with the powers of observation and experimentation available even just now. <BR/><BR/>Your emotionally charged accusations just kind of underscore your "personal bent" in these issues!!!!! Please, forget the "creationist vs. evolutionist" "debate" and follow the data where ever it goes, without trying to "squeeze the interpretations of such" into any kind of philosophically driven agenda!!!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>NealAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75701787324262389872007-12-29T23:21:00.000-05:002007-12-29T23:21:00.000-05:00"Its about time you acknowledged unto yourself tha..."Its about time you acknowledged unto yourself that you have truly no idea of what you are talking about."<BR/><BR/>I really do know what I am talking about. I have been studying it for many years. I guess the lesson is that it is impossible to make my points to an audience that is unable to really grasp the conceptualizations, but also are ignorant regarding the unbiased interpretation of scientific evidences that are so available <BR/>to anyone that has a serious interest in the topics at hand!<BR/><BR/>NealAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35048755872587642272007-12-29T01:25:00.000-05:002007-12-29T01:25:00.000-05:00"And these are my last words! Enough of antiscient..."And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!"<BR/><BR/>Please dont go!!! What you say is I think means a lot to this discussion.<BR/>I just believe we have to seriously consider in ways we havent had the abilities to really consider what our capabilities can actually allow us to realize regarding these questions!!!!<BR/>I really love you. Believe me please!<BR/><BR/>Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:22:00 AM<BR/><BR/><BR/>I forgot to identify myself in the last post. But it is me, Neal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66858801683990050662007-12-29T01:22:00.000-05:002007-12-29T01:22:00.000-05:00"And these are my last words! Enough of antiscient..."And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!"<BR/><BR/>Please dont go!!! What you say is I think means a lot to this discussion.<BR/>I just believe we have to seriously consider in ways we havent had the abilities to really consider what our capabilities can actually allow us to realize regarding these questions!!!!<BR/>I really love you. Believe me please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30414498785118642342007-12-28T01:18:00.000-05:002007-12-28T01:18:00.000-05:00Neal, you think evolutionary science is intrinsica...Neal, you think evolutionary science is intrinsically atheistic, so you'll never give it a chance. Just letting you know, in a friendly way, and for your own good, that that is simply not true. <BR/>Remeber: 'When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation'"—Proverbs 18:13 <BR/>Its about time you acknowledged unto yourself that you have truly no idea of what you are talking about. Because we know that is the truth. <BR/>Also, you are giving a quite sad spectacle of yourself with so much insolence and mindless hatred, which I find delighting becuause it shows just how empty yor arguments you really are. Please, continue to make an embarrassment of yourself. It's clear creationists have nothing to do with science and all to do with simply making noise. <BR/><BR/>And these are my last words! Enough of antiscientific fools!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35797961762572394752007-12-28T00:34:00.000-05:002007-12-28T00:34:00.000-05:00Just another chain of thoughts (explain that pheno...Just another chain of thoughts (explain that phenomena in bottom to top science as_____s.)<BR/>The vastly philosophically interpretative derivitives of "evolutionary" sciences are "cherry picking the sh__ out of actual observations. "Evolution" in the sense you understand, want to be true and unabatedy masturabatorily promulgate are just being greedily and stupidly shat upon the unsuspecting public. (Those that have no fu____ choice but to pay you pathetic as---- for the fairytail, philosophically preferred interpretation of publicly funded research results.)<BR/>If any of you were even half way honest you would admit publicly, " we aren't even f______ close to explaining how chemicals became living ecosystems, regardless of the time frame involved (criticizing "young earth creationism" as a basis for "large scale evoltuion" is just an amazingly obvious and stupid "cop out"). And honestly we have nothing significantly definitive to publiclly declare in that regard. We are still working on it and we reserve judgment until we have adequate verifiable evidence to support whatever claims the evidence supports." Jeez, Moron, wouldn't that be refreshingly novel for the growing "skeptical audience" that is so sick and tired and "skeptical" of the vastly unsubstantiated CRAP (based on available SIGNIFICANT TO THE CLAIMS evidence) that your philosophically biased "camp" continues to promote on public funds based on what many consider to be HUGELY OUTDATED laughingly biased interpretations of evidence?<BR/><BR/>How old are you moron? Shi- grow up you pr----!!!!! <BR/><BR/>NealAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22728318226285073832007-12-27T23:51:00.000-05:002007-12-27T23:51:00.000-05:00Look, your arguments are ridiculously deplete of ...Look, your arguments are ridiculously deplete of any kind of significantly verifiable data that any somewhat informed IDIOT would even bother to put 2 f------ cents on a bet!!!!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Anybody who wants to perpetuate the feeble (and growing at unbelievably rapid exponentially rates) explanations compared to the data real science (non "evolutionary dogma") is producing that continues to mock your personally driven philosophically preferred interpretations of the vastly "uninterpreted" is just visibly wallowing in some sort of cesspool of personal crap. I smells and stinks and is obvious to anybody, who with any kind of open mind is "looking in to this debate". The public is REALLY WISING UP TO YOUR STUPID A-- GIG! Position yourselves in some other part of science that is actually productive, or leave it alone!!!!! And 99.999999 percent of sciences ARE what most would consider "productive". The distinctions between traditional evolutionary "philosophy" and real science are becoming more and more and more and more, (etc.) clear by the friggin day!!!!!!! Remove your personal romantic agendas from what real science is, or others will do it for you!!!!!!! <BR/><BR/>NealAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24687766043569764322007-12-27T18:13:00.000-05:002007-12-27T18:13:00.000-05:00I also sympathize more with those. The important ...I also sympathize more with those. The important thing is that both religious and non-religious scientists have helped build our current knowledge on evolution and the natural history of life on earth.<BR/>Creationists only fool themselves when they think that evolutionary science is nothing but the the product of atheism; great evolutionary scientists have been christians. "Radical atheists", like creationists, are also discomforted by this fact, since notorious figures of evolutionary science must therein be considered "superstitious". As you can see, radical atheists and creationists are bound together by a similar foolishness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80307551362683219612007-12-27T17:40:00.000-05:002007-12-27T17:40:00.000-05:00el topo says,The resurrection and the miracles hav...el topo says,<BR/><BR/><I>The resurrection and the miracles have never been denied by truly religious scientists, and I'll give you two mouth-gaping examples. I doubt that in the entire mid XXth century and right ino the 70's there were hardly any evolutionary biologists as highly influential as Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. Just wikipedia them. These were the true champions of the modern synthesis and neodarwinism.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, I dunno ... I'm kind of partial to J.B.S. Haldane, Julian Huxley, and Ernst Mayr. Wikipedia them to see if they were among the truly religious scientists.<BR/><BR/>You really don't want to get into a contest where we compare the number of influential religious scientists to the number who don't believe in God. You won't win that pissing contest.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64878762560162927192007-12-27T03:01:00.000-05:002007-12-27T03:01:00.000-05:00As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the noah's fl...As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the noah's flood creationists like Mats have a bit of a problem. What happened to the plants?<BR/><BR/>They would have died being covered with water. So after the flood, where did the new plants come from? I don't remember hearing about gawd making a second creation at the time.<BR/><BR/>Since there were no plants, how did noah and his animals live after the flood?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, researchers have now placed the origin of flowering plants at about 120 million years ago. Before that, there were other plants around for hundreds of millions of years, some ones of which evolved into flowering ones.<BR/><BR/>I gave the link to a program from Nova, "First Flower" in the earlier thread.Ned Luddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00599196155953996432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65652491143946654962007-12-26T13:57:00.000-05:002007-12-26T13:57:00.000-05:00"We know that atheism has had very little influenc..."We know that atheism has had very little influence in the flourishing of science. However, atheists believe (on faith) that Biblical Christianity played no positive role in the scientific revolution"<BR/><BR/>Well, that is probably because biblical christianity was already there and was therefore not the innovation that we could blame the flourishing of science for. <BR/><BR/>"Which passages did he "beg not to take a literal intepretation" ? The ressurrection? The miracles?"<BR/><BR/>Not at all. Buckland was convinced of the raality of the miracles. Buckland was referring to the 6 pre-human days of genesis not being literal days; as I said, he was an early geologist, realizing that a long pre-human existence of an old earth was the reality.<BR/><BR/>The resurrection and the miracles have never been denied by truly religious scientists, and I'll give you two mouth-gaping examples. I doubt that in the entire mid XXth century and right ino the 70's there were hardly any evolutionary biologists as highly influential as Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. Just wikipedia them. These were the true champions of the modern synthesis and neodarwinism. <BR/>Well, they were both devout christains that believed in the reality of the resurrection and the miracles.<BR/>See, these scientists knew perfectly well that what they believed happened in the resurrection (for instance) was not what precisely what science would prescribe. Indeed, if not, they would not be true miracles, wouldn't they.<BR/> <BR/>The difference with you creationists, is that you are too dumb to KNOW when you ARE charging against sound, proper scientific knowledge.<BR/><BR/>(Another interestig guy: paleontologist Robert Bakker, perhaps the coolest man alive. He helped to establish the fact that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. He is a church pastor, too. The list of christian evolutionary biologists continues...<BR/>Note, too that Dawkins himself acknowledges Air Ronald Fisher to be nothing but the greatest since Darwin. Yes, darwinists drool at Fisher)<BR/><BR/>"You should be telling that to the atheists, who think that Biblical Christian faith is somehow an enemy of operational science".<BR/><BR/>I do, but it's hard to make the point come across when some christians like yourself DO indeed negate the validity of soundly established scientific knowledge in favor of a narrow, literalist interpretation of genesis. You are living proof that bad religion can go out of its way to attack science. .<BR/>"You show send these words to atheists like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens"<BR/><BR/>None of which I agree with, for the same reason. Those authors contribute to the false notion that evolution=atheism. Of course guys like you make them a great service since you play into exactly the same dichotomy. You DESERVE each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42475338628525893332007-12-26T13:14:00.000-05:002007-12-26T13:14:00.000-05:00Larry wrote:"Neal says,'Meanwhile, there are suffe...Larry wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Neal says,<BR/><BR/>'Meanwhile, there are suffering individuals begging for real time real scientifically supported results to in some significantly contemporaneous fashion, potentially to cure their miserable bodies so they can have their lives extended towards what most of us would prefer as well!<BR/><BR/>'The appearance of "design" in nature (or whatever you contentious idiots want to call it)is undeniable.'<BR/><BR/>"Am I the only one who sees the irony (and humor) in those two juxtaposed sentences?"<BR/><BR/>Irony, sure. But in the current situation in the U.S., where disdain or outright hostility toward some scientific research by a large proportion of the Administration's political supporters is reflected in decreased funding (private as well as public), you'll pardon me if I don't feel all that much amusement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5119592504245394782007-12-26T12:54:00.000-05:002007-12-26T12:54:00.000-05:00I thought I would point out another famous Canadia...I thought I would point out another famous Canadian, this time doing a xmas song "Silent Night". Deanna Durbin. She also does a good "Come all ye faithful".<BR/><BR/>I hope I don't inadvertently make any converts.<BR/><BR/>http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=pIUcTcVdXH8<BR/><BR/>There are many good things by her on youtube.Ned Luddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00599196155953996432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17200508826786618092007-12-26T09:55:00.000-05:002007-12-26T09:55:00.000-05:00Neal says,Meanwhile, there are suffering individua...Neal says,<BR/><BR/><I>Meanwhile, there are suffering individuals begging for real time real scientifically supported results to in some significantly contemporaneous fashion, potentially to cure their miserable bodies so they can have their lives extended towards what most of us would prefer as well!<BR/><BR/>The appearance of "design" in nature (or whatever you contentious idiots want to call it)is undeniable.</I><BR/><BR/>Am I the only one who sees the irony (and humor) in those two juxtaposed sentences?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11107684989737408962007-12-26T09:50:00.000-05:002007-12-26T09:50:00.000-05:00I asked mats whether he interpreted Joshua 10:13, ...I asked mats whether he interpreted Joshua 10:13, where the sun is said to stay still in the sky (see http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm) as meaning (1) the sun revolves around the Earth, or as meaning (2) that the sun *appeared* to stand still in the sky. <BR/><BR/>mats replied, "The same way I interprete weather forecasters when they use words like 'sunrise' and 'sunset.'" I take this to mean he interprets the passage in accordance with alternative #2. If I'm wrong about that, mats, please correct me.<BR/><BR/>My next question is this: Do you agree that at the time of Galileo, the interpretation of Joshua 10:13 adopted by the Roman Catholic Church was in accordance with my alternative #1 above?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6327140167893276372007-12-26T09:49:00.000-05:002007-12-26T09:49:00.000-05:00Somebody who is afraid to give us their real name,...Somebody who is afraid to give us their real name, says<BR/><BR/><I>So If Larry Moron implies that the blood cotting cascade is one of several molecular machines and complex systems whose evolution is adequately demonstrated with actual results and understood, I am a little suspect (although I don't know) that perhaps he hasn't bothered to adequately study the research papers of any of them. Or maybe not in any kind of critical fashion.</I><BR/><BR/>The blood clotting system is described is a series of postings on this blog in case you don't know what you're talking about [<A HERF="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/theme-blood-clotting.html">Blood Clotting</A>]. <BR/><BR/>I didn't describe the probable evolution of this system—perhaps I should if the creationists are still sticking their finger in their ears and shouting "PRAISE BEHE!!!"<BR/><BR/>(While at the same time, diverting attention away from the other systems that scientists have explained. Note that our anonymous reader doesn't say anything at all about the citric acid cycle or, indeed, any of the other supposedly irreducibly complex systems that have an evolutionary explanation.)<BR/> <BR/>I realize that talking science to "anonymous" is probably a waste of time but for those intelligent readers out there, let me explain the scientific position of blood clotting.<BR/><BR/>It might never be possible to discover the exact history of the modern mammalian blood clotting system. It looks very much like an accidental cobbling together of various proteases that are similar in function and sequence. One thing we can say for sure is that it certainly doesn't look like it was designed by anything intelligent.<BR/><BR/>What Doolittle (and others) have done is to describe a perfectly reasonable evolutionary pathway that could have given rise to the modern system. This is all that's logically required to refute Behe, since he claims that such a pathway is impossible in principle. <BR/><BR/>Naturally the anti-evolutionists, being IDiots, will reject the possible evolutionary pathway because it's not detailed enough, or because there's not enough experimental evidence. This is called moving the goalposts.<BR/><BR/>But have you noticed something about the IDiots? They no longer refer to the blood clotting cascade in their books and articles. They don't trot it out as an example of irreducible complexity any more. <BR/><BR/>Isn't that interesting? Why is it that among the millions of possible examples of design they always fall back on single example— the bacteria flagella? <BR/><BR/>From time to time they bring up other possibilities but when scientists present an evolutionary explanation, they drop them like a hot potato. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? <BR/><BR/><I>So maybe it is the old deal of "well, somebody in the field must have proved it, that's what I have been told, therefore it must be true". Just the kind of thing that non-creationists along with creationists (who modern evolutionists love to label any one who sees the problems, just load em all onto the Titanic and shove it off)are tired of. Assertions and conclusions which have not been ADEQUATELY supported by the research, but "gosh darn it, I can imagine that it might be compatible with my beloved dogma. We've been able to sell it so far. Screw the inconvenient details. Everybody knows we are the experts. And besides there are no other foxes in the chicken house but us."</I><BR/><BR/>Some of what you say is true. Since we're dealing with things that evolved several hundred million years ago it's not surprising that we don't have a precise handle on all the details. <BR/><BR/>The problem with Intelligent Design Creationism is that it is essentially a way of finding gaps where God can hide. As the bigger gaps are closed the creationists are more than happy to hide their God in smaller and smaller gaps. Now they're down to basing an entire superstitious philosophy on a few "inconvenient details."Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56262328887757810702007-12-26T08:36:00.000-05:002007-12-26T08:36:00.000-05:00Mats said:"Yes, and we all know where that ended. ...<B>Mats said:</B><BR/><I>"Yes, and we all know where that ended. At one time Darwin proposed that whales evolved from....bears!"</I><BR/><BR/>While the creationist morons propose that we come from a supernatural, superbeing in the sky...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29671402693228262852007-12-26T08:02:00.000-05:002007-12-26T08:02:00.000-05:00Although Darwin was a scholar, he abandoned the cu...<B><BR/> Although Darwin was a scholar, he abandoned the current textbook theories of his day and began to form opinions based on his own experience.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, and we all know where that ended. At one time Darwin proposed that whales evolved from....bears! <BR/><BR/><B><BR/>The bible people were not at all pleased.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Neither were many of contemporany scientists. They argued with Darwin and told him pretty much what darwin skeptics say today: <B>There is no evidence</B>.<BR/>..................<BR/>Jud said <BR/><B>Hi, mats, a couple of questions I'd like to ask - I'll take them one at a time if you don't mind. The first is, how do you interpret Joshua 10:13 (see http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm )?<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>The same way I interprete weather forecasters when they use words like "sunrise" and "suntset".<BR/><BR/>...............<BR/>el topo said:<BR/><B><BR/>They think that proper natural history is motivated by atheism;<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>We know that atheism has had very little influence in the flourinshing of science. However, atheists believe (on faith) that Biblical Christianity played no positive role in the scientific revolution.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/> yet many men of faith have contributed to this grand accumulation of knowledge. Reverend William Buckland, for instance, was among the XIXth century early geologists who begged for a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures. <BR/></B><BR/>Which passages did he "beg not to take a literal intepretation" ? The ressurrection? The miracles?<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Unfortunately, some 21st century fools are less enlightened. They reject great research as inherently disgusting and don't stop to think they never really look into it. They just choose to ignore the tons of cool stuff that we know about the natural history of life on earth as if it were all about atheism. <BR/></B><BR/>You should be telling that to the atheists, who think that Biblical Christian faith is somehow an enemy of operational science.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>That is false. Our knowledge of natural history is simply where the puzzle-solving of science will lead any person that approaches the data sincerely.</B><BR/>Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "aproaching the data sincerely".<BR/><BR/><B> A contribution are made atheist as theists of any particular religion. Scientific discussion sees no race, class or religion. That's much of the beauty of it.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>You show send these words to atheists like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com