Jump to content

The creation.


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some interesting stuff being presented in the CH4 prog called "catastrophes" - about how our planet was created, how life developed etc - and all (according to current scientific theory) derived from some major catastrophe that wiped out most that existed before and saw the development of surviving species - so, why are we here - well it's all down to luck apparently! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

FYI and discussion.

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=12162416

 

A slightly different version:

 

Three in 10 science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.

And more than a third (37%) of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.

The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half (47%) believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds (65%) agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.

This rises to three quarters of teachers (73%) with science as their subject specialism. Two in three science specialists (65%) do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons. But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.

Just one in four (26%) agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."

Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: "Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of 'theory', but also to acknowledge that - regardless of, or even despite, "the science" - pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs."

Prof Higgins said: "Creationism, as an alternative to the evolution of species, has long been thoroughly discredited by rigorous analysis of data. Of course, if a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate as part of an education in intellectual integrity and rational thought.

"But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."

A Teachers TV poll of 1,200 teachers, published last month, revealed that a third of teachers believe creationism should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom. In September, leading biologist the Rev Professor Michael Reiss resigned as the Royal Society's director of education days after suggesting creationism be included in science lessons.

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, Prof Reiss - an ordained Church of England minister - said it was better for science teachers not to see creationism as a "misconception" but as a "world view". Ipsos Mori questioned 923 primary and secondary school teachers in England and Wales between November 5 and December 10.

 

Also recommended:

 

http://www.fixed-point.org/billboard/billboard.asp?ItemID=41

 

Richard Dawkins and John Lennox enjoyed their debate so much they had a friendly rematch in Oxford University itself. Which I have yet to see:

 

http://www.fixed-point.org/billboard/billboard.asp?ItemID=47

 

I think I'll get John Lennox's book 'God's Undertaker' today. Time to dig out my Dawkins books again, soon, having the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion. What, with that, and me studying Islam, and so on, I'm going to be busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one knows how it all started. So unless proof can be found, there is nothing wrong with people having their own views.

I do believe that religion brings a lot of comfort to a lot of people, so therefore why knock it?

Each to their own. It is optional.

But by knocking it, it is disrespectful to others. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one incontrovertible proof. The 3K Microwave Background Radiation. There is a universal signal, a ghost of a once hot Universe. A sign of a hot bang. Now almost totally died out. But through radio telescopes, that whisper is everywhere.

 

You know Peter, some people even deny there was a beginning at all. But the radiation mentioned above denies that. (The way to get round those is through belief in either an oscillating Universe, with successive Big Bangs and Big Crunches, or through the unprovable Multiverse theory, which simply puts the question of a beginning one step back and hopes no-one notices. Oh yes, and I forgot the other way round it. The Steady State theory. Everything looks the same and has seemed the same, with an eternal white hole Big Bang-esuqe spewing out new material, new galaxies, in such a away that everything seems the same.)

 

But some things are clear. The Universe is finite. Our dark skies are proof of this. If there were an infinity of light sources throughout eternity past, we would still have daylight all over at daytime. (Hmmm. Makes me wonder. It would a be a LOT harder for someone in an alien civilisation living in a world orbiting a star in a globular cluster to make this point! Luckily, living in a single star system, on a spiral arm on the edge of the spiral part of the galaxy, not counting the huge halo of stars surrounding the spiral, the outer rim, we have a truer perspective than anyone living in say M13 in Hercules.) This version of the Universe had a beginning and to talk of a 'before' is an oxymoron. Ultimately something which does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. This Universe will expand forever, to the point of the heat death of the Universe and matter being too small, cold and isolated for even the tiniest particles to meet. There is not enough matter to cause a Big Crunch. Which means only a finite number of causes. Which means an absolute beginning. Which means all the Universes if so, cannot have brought themselves into existence. Which means matter and physics cannot have existed forever or cause the Universe. Which means the Universe had to be created deliberately by an Intelligence. Since the Intelligence is the First Cause by definition, then the Intelligence cannot have been caused, but has existed non-stop forever. In other words, God. So to say who made God or who designed the designer is an idiotic oxymoron. While us finite creatures cannot get our heads round the mechanics of an Intelligence being infinite in all respects, the answer to that is Tough.

 

Therefore while there is no proof as to the exact mechanics of a big bang to a Universe which was totally non-existent in relation even to space and time, there is a proof at least that there was a beginning, and its beginning was God. Good old Kalam strikes again.

 

Oh. The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't count, nor the Chocolate Teapot. One thing is that they are food and therefore manufactured. They are finite or they could not be Spaghetti or a teapot, or fly, since that needs a finite object to ove from A to B. There is no A to B with infinity. Also, finally, both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Chocolate Teapot, can be eaten! BURP Delicious! Except that I cannot eat chocolate as I am allergic to it and it causes me migraines!

 

One interesting question, Peter. What happens if God Himself knocks religions, including even His own religion? (See Amos, or Jesus' own criticisms of hypocrisy within Judaism.) But then disrespect is not the issue there. Truth and honesty is.

 

But it is a rational argument on both sides. For example, a particular type of beetle which gives off an explosive fart to aid its flight when flying from predators and defending itself. Or the development of the human eye. How does an eye evolve? Can for millions of years, creatures have a quarter of an eye, half an eye, then get an eye? Are amino-acids thinking molecules which consciously go, oh, I must develop this bit and that bit for the creature I am in? Why is DNA full of complex mathematical binary numbers? Can abiogenic synthesis occur by chance in such a short time, even acording to conventional modern evolutionist Old Earth geological dating?

 

I think it takes far less faith to hold my position on this matter. In fact, faith in my case is about trusting in something I already know. Because it has been clearly revealed.

 

BUT, each to their own. And, each to their own consequences. Different strokes for different folks, yes, but if there is only one God, and if He, She or It has a distinct opinion, then that opinion is the one which will have sway when it comes to the crunch. All the more reason to try to come to an informed, rational conclusion.

 

Best wishes to all of you, of all creeds or none. Wait. Atheism is a creed too. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say he does it because he knows it is true, six days or 18000 million years, makes little difference to me. :wink:

 

As Paul says, Man suppresses the truth by his own wickedness. :lol:

 

Obbs may laugh, but his laugh is nowhere near as loud as God's contemptuous, angry laugh at politicians under His wrath- Psalm 2.

 

It also shows HE CAN'T ANSWER A BLINKING THING! 8)

 

 

It amuses me to note that John Calvin pointed out in the 16th century that sceptics used to taunt him by saying, "What? Six days?! Couldn't God do it in one second?!"

 

Too bad Obbs I've got you cornered on the science and the philosophy. Hehehehehehehe. I didn't even need to resort to theology. :P

 

My brother says Observer has never had anything sensible to say ever since I joined WWW. He says he has heard daft politicians in the past talk drivel but Observer is is so bad that he has to hide behind a computer.

 

Obbs may caricature me as some foaming at the mouth, easily offended religious nut, but my bro has noted how often I am laughing my leg off at Obbs' comments. And even more at my brother's responses. Think of gnats with lobotomies, and you'll get the picture.

 

My brother asked me today do you think 10 years of me posting will make Observer finally get it? I said, "No."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Cuckoos- a symptom of the Fall, methinks, rather. Such a bizarre set-up is hardly a good sign of Natural Selection at all, given that Natural Selection isn't supposed to function that way.

 

I got the one Flew over the cuckoo's nest joke in first, two years ago, Obbs- do try to keep up, slowcoach! :roll::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...