tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post6630773141249776364..comments2024-03-01T10:11:31.939+11:00Comments on The Palimpsest: When you can't convince unreasonNathan Zamprognohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-55680525042962004532010-01-14T06:09:14.830+11:002010-01-14T06:09:14.830+11:00I liked the posting & think that it will be he...I liked the posting & think that it will be helpful for others. Keep up the good work. Good luck.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Web Royalty</a>Nick Matyashttp://www.webroyalty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-58655838004729021352010-01-03T10:25:12.838+11:002010-01-03T10:25:12.838+11:00It's really an impressive posting. I liked it ...It's really an impressive posting. I liked it & think that it will be helpful for others. Keep up the good work. Good luck.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Web Royalty</a>Nick Matyashttp://webroyalty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-86790781976493161712009-12-27T07:37:25.374+11:002009-12-27T07:37:25.374+11:00Very good article.I think this site will do better...Very good article.I think this site will do better in future.well job<br /><br />thank you for your comments <br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Bathmate</a>bathmatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08828026417866333107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-27260072558049950282009-08-19T10:41:53.173+10:002009-08-19T10:41:53.173+10:00I found this quote recently. It encapsulates the s...I found this quote recently. It encapsulates the sentiment I was trying to convey:<br /><br />"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."<br />Friedrich Schiller, 1801.Nathan Zamprognohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-43980494605071918682009-02-20T05:09:00.000+11:002009-02-20T05:09:00.000+11:00Thanks for stopping by ol' Science Fail and leavin...Thanks for stopping by ol' Science Fail and leaving a link. I liked this page a lot and it really speaks volumes about Hovind and the people that seemingly agree with him.Dirty Hairyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410974683468978581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-72439125945389309002007-09-27T12:04:00.000+10:002007-09-27T12:04:00.000+10:00Ah, this is too good. My hometown Baptist Church a...Ah, this is too good. <BR/>My hometown Baptist Church actually donated hours and hours of Hovind's VHS crap to the public library, to poison more young minds against science. <BR/>Watch out for that canola oil! (it actually is hazardous if you spill it on the floor...)S.M. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13790067061938701596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-24712597969542411022007-07-15T14:41:00.000+10:002007-07-15T14:41:00.000+10:00At Fri Jul 06, 04:21:00 AM EST, Shap said... Wow, ...At Fri Jul 06, 04:21:00 AM EST, Shap said... <BR/>Wow, it looks like plenty of fellow christians are coming out of the woodwork to defend this guy, just because he's a 'fellow christian'? <BR/><BR/>Maybe you guys should pray for Mr. Hovind instead. He is a convicted criminal, and an anti-semite. These facts are not disputed.<BR/><BR/>Instead of criticizing reasonable people for pointing out the lunacy of a religious fundamentalist, maybe you guys should take a look in a mirror.<BR/><BR/>I mean, Hitler was a christian, you wanna come to his defense? Just because somebody follows christ, doesn't make them infallible. I'm not trying to compare Hovind to Hitler, but the guy is a criminal, and many of his views are utterly indefensible by any rational human being.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yeah, Kent is in prison just like all those other criminals were sent to prison like: Peter, Paul, Timothy, John, etc...he is in good company I'd say. You may want to take a look at your own salvation and check and see if you are truly a biblical christian. A good barometer to measure it by, is to see how the world likes you. Are you being persecuted, jailed, talked bad about in the worldly newspapers, or the TV news. I think not. What seperates you from the world. They accept you as one of their own. there is little difference between you and the world. Now, Kent is as a different story altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-32899454681612261822007-07-10T09:13:00.000+10:002007-07-10T09:13:00.000+10:00After reading your article, I must commend you for...After reading your article, I must commend you for being an "open-minded" Christian. Its most definately hard to find those in the USA. Specific points to applaud:<BR/><BR/>You question things. Any intelligent person has to know that priest, politicians, and philosophers don't know everything. Just because some of the other posters here heard it from their backwoods Arkansas padre that their interpretation of the scriptures is correct, doesn't mean that they are right.<BR/><BR/>You are a Christian AND you debate your own religion. Most excellent. Just like someone after the truth. Not afraid of people who say that questioning makes you a "fake Christian" or some other nonsense.<BR/><BR/>So, after that...my take:<BR/><BR/>I'm not much of a Christian, I have to admit. I was baptized as such, maybe I'm a lax Christian. hmm. Anyways, what drove me from the church was all the hypocrisy from people. They preach, they don't practice. They love to quote scripture when it does them good to win an argument, but not if it works the other way.<BR/><BR/>Why are do so many Christians have blinders on the logic, reason, and common-sense, yet claim the opposite?<BR/><BR/>-DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-13273099570456742342007-07-10T03:38:00.000+10:002007-07-10T03:38:00.000+10:00Mattias: "I believe in God because of all the phys...Mattias: <I>"<B>I believe in God because</B> of all the physical evidence of a young earth, and <B>I believe in Christ because</B> of the necessity of a Saviour since we've all sinned. <B>I believe in Christ because</B> if the earth is young then evolution could not have taken place and there must've been a Creator..."</I><BR/><BR/>So, in other words, you NEED a young earth, and you NEED the necessity of a savior, and you NEED evolution to have not taken place,,, all in order to believe in Christ?<BR/><BR/>Your faith appears shaky.<BR/><BR/>If evolution is true, and the earth is billions of years old, and if perhaps someone suggested that original sin measurable tangible thing,, you won't believe in Jesus Christ as God?<BR/><BR/>I think the mystery of true faith would be that you don't need all the "because" clauses.<BR/><BR/>Your dependence on all or your becauses makes it sound more like you can't be open to scientific observation, lest it fundamentally shake your belief in God.<BR/><BR/>People ask Nathan why he "ridicules" YECs. Understand, that it is the kind of thinking that Mattias is displaying here that drove the Church to imprison scientists and conduct the inquisitions and so on. It's a dangerous. The Church didn't just "accept" geocentrism; it NEEDED it, just as Mattias needs YEC now.<BR/><BR/>Mattias, the fact that the Church came around on the subject should say something.<BR/><BR/>Hovind's and Mattias's way of thinking is in fact still dangerous. Look at how it impedes medical research, for starters!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-41649501136989456812007-07-09T10:33:00.000+10:002007-07-09T10:33:00.000+10:00@MPM"Data told Galileo that the earth was not the ...@MPM<BR/>"Data told Galileo that the earth was not the center of the solar system. He did not have enough data to correctly determine the true planetary orbits. Does this lack of complete data make him wrong? No."<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you've selected Galileo who produced a limited explanation of what is now more well-defined knowledge then Ptolemy who I discussed in my comments earlier. Data told Ptolemy that the earth was the center of the universe, a hypothesis we now know to be completely false. Is his data and model useful and correct? Well, yes - but the hypothesis he drew from that data and model was unequivocally incorrect. Completely wrong. Going back through the development of theories we now hold to be established knowledge and highlighting those involved in its discovery is not a good argument, especially when their theories were in opposition to the science of the day.<BR/><BR/>You’ve said there is clear evidence for the age of the earth. OK – I’m entirely open to that being the case. However, show me evidence that lacks assumptions on the part of the observer. For example, radiocarbon dating assumes a reasonably constant level of carbon isotope 14 forming in the atmosphere, and in 2001 someone found levels twice as high as the current levels in calcium deposits in caves in the Bahamas. This adjusts their knowledge <A HREF="http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/5/5/7/1" REL="nofollow">(citation)</A>. The technique is still useful and the new data helps make it more useful in the future – however, it casts doubt on the underlying assumption, which is that 14C levels have been roughly consistent throughout history.<BR/><BR/>So – let me put it to you simply: What evidence have you observed that has satisfied you that the earth is 14.6 billion years old? And honestly – I have no firm view on this, so I’m happy to be shown. My concern is that I see a rising trend that people are viewing scientific theory as being the truth. It’s not the truth – it’s a best understanding. You say that you can be sure due to evidence that the earth is 14.6 billion years old. I’d say that based on inference and assumption, theories have been formed about the age of the earth that make sense based on our present ability to observe. Future advances in that ability may radically alter that understanding, as they have repeatedly in the past.<BR/><BR/>I find this comment interesting:<BR/>“Evolution, the age of the earth, the speed of light, and gravity, are all MEASURABLE.”<BR/><BR/>Problems with the other mentioned measurements aside, I’m wondering how evolution specifically is measurable. I’m happy to be wrong, but my understanding is that the element of chance involved in evolution makes it unpredictable – ie: put a family of mice in a controlled environment that will sustain them for a couple of billion years, and you <I>may or may not</I> see significant genetic change. Well obviously <B>you</B> won’t see it, but I think that’s part of the problem really. People want answers within their lifetime, and they’re willing to accept substantial leaps in logic to get them. What evolution as a theory needs is a controlled experiment showing absolutely that a tracked genetic family is able, and more so that it will, produce a genetically-definable new species in a finite, albeit very extensive period of time. If it doesn’t, then our current understanding is not adequate. While ever such experiment does not exist, for me to say “yes, 100%, man evolved from less-complex life forms” takes as much faith as for you to believe me if I say “we were created from pixie-dust by fairies.” While current observation supports the former being more probable, it is still far from certain. And certainty is what you're claiming you have.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as always I might be wrong. I just think to say there is evidence that 100% verifies that the earth is 14.6 billion years old (+/- 0.5 billion years) is at this point a bit of a stretch. Especially since we’ve been observing stuff like this for what, maybe 0.0001 billion years? I don’t understand how you can say we can know this for sure.Justin Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995847102962013980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-63293163760336376382007-07-08T19:03:00.000+10:002007-07-08T19:03:00.000+10:00While I'm not a YEC, nor an Old Earth one (not rea...While I'm not a YEC, nor an Old Earth one (not really sure where I fit), I've often wondered why does evolution suggest the non-existence of a creator? <BR/><BR/>Genesis outlines the creation process , though not in a hugely detailed analysis, and perhaps non-literary either. While the earth was created in 7 days, there is no defintiion of a day besides seperation of light and dark. <BR/><BR/>This being the case, isn't it entirely plausible that 'evolution' was merely the way God chose to create the animals? For Him anything is possible, and while it states that He created them, there is no specific mention that they were created from dust as was man. <BR/><BR/>Science has shown (as far as I understand anyway) that evolution occured, and many species have been tracked using fossils concerning their evolution. <BR/><BR/>While I personally believe that the 'missing link' will never be found, I do hold the belief that for God anything is possible, and that I will never (while I'm alive on this earth) understand Him completely. In other words, if He chose to use a method that we humans have labeled evolution in the creation of the world, why should we as Christians discount it?mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336161794247063945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-91320778780765675852007-07-08T18:28:00.000+10:002007-07-08T18:28:00.000+10:00I'm a firm believer in Young Earth Creationism, bu...I'm a firm believer in Young Earth Creationism, but I don't hold to any of the points you listed. Yes, I've seen them all before, and yes, I know some YEC's who believe some of them. (I also know "Old Earthers" who also believe them, for that matter.) I simply don't see YEC as necessarily equatable to conspiracy theories. Likewise, most of the YEC's I rub shoulders with are like myself, not believing every kook theory to come down the pike, and are logical beings themselves - some are even scientists (a biologist and paleoanthropologist comes to mind at the moment). <BR/><BR/>So, I would like to set the record straight for those readers that did not catch your non-inclusive language: we are not all oddballs. (Unless YEC is enough to qualify a person as an oddball - then all the rest doesn't really matter!)<BR/><BR/>Just one more point, because someone mentioned the geocentric model of the solar system was held by many in the church. We must understand this in the tide of history. When the ancient Greeks experienced their scientific "renaissance," few were actually seeing past the conventions of their day and proposing heliocentric models. Remember, Aristotle's arguments for a GEOcentric model won the debates of his day. So, when Copernicus came along, the church simply accepted Aristotle's explanation because they felt they found biblical support for it. In essence, the church felt the weight of both scientific and spiritual evidence favored geocentricism because it initially accepted the Aristotelian science of the matter (basically, the seeming inability of a sphere to move through space without its surface contents sliding off one side due to inertia, among other points). (Oh, and by the way, the church has never collectively believed the earth is flat, to my knowledge. Geocentricism was its only blunder - it proved itself worthy in many other fields of science.)<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Is it possible that YEC is wrong? Of course. But name calling and assumptions is not helping anyone. And we must remember, for all this discussion, that the Gospel is the single most important doctrine of Scripture which must be defended and preached. Christ died and rose again to reconcile a wayward people to God. This is the most significant and powerful message for humanity, not "the earth is/is not 6,000 years old." So, at the end of the day, may we remember this above all else.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-46033216432135738362007-07-08T17:56:00.000+10:002007-07-08T17:56:00.000+10:00To the previous commenter:(quote) "I think you are...To the previous commenter:<BR/><BR/>(quote) <I>"I think you are a fake Christian... I would like to hear you confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. That he was the lamb of God that was crucified and thus sacrified to cover our sins. That Jesus Christ is eternal, that he created the universe, and that his earthly body was resurrected from the dead on the third day."</I><BR/><BR/>Fine. I do so confess to precisely that creed, with all my heart. Am I still a fake Christian?<BR/><BR/>You precisely prove my point. <B>Reasoned criticism is not evidence of a lack of salvation. Publicly warning people to reject lunatic beliefs that are offered up as having the same authority as Scripture does not make me a "fake Christian".</B> If you are so insecure in your own faith that you need to invoke <I>that</I> argument, then you have already lost.<BR/><BR/>You suggest nearly all Hovind's claims (including the ones I have highlighted are easily verifiable). This is an incredible statement. Living dinosaurs! Government mind control! Global conspiracies! <BR/><BR/>Rather than argue with you ad-infinitum point by point, all I can offer is this statement: You are a first class dupe; someone whose ignorance crosses over the line from eccentricity and into positive danger- to yourself and the society you live in. If you believe people like Kent Hovind then you'll believe anything. You detract from the sum of human knowledge. You deserve to be scorned and laughed out of any public forum you raise these beliefs in. Jesus loves you, and I'm sure you're saved, but with beliefs like yours you should know that you damage the body of Christ every time you open your mouth.<BR/><BR/>Some may regard my approach as harsh, but mouth breathing dolts like you deserve to be laughed at.Nathan Zamprognohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-57477640742433768242007-07-08T13:39:00.000+10:002007-07-08T13:39:00.000+10:00How many have you led to Jesus Christ? A handful? ...How many have you led to Jesus Christ? A handful? Personally I agree with most of Mr Hovind's statements, and if you earnestly want to find out the details of his arguments you need to go no farther than to your personal computer: The majority, if not all of his claims can be verified easily if you take the time to do the research. You support evolution in spite of all the evidence for a recent Creation, you support evolution in spite of the societal and moral consequences of that creed. Just because you have a flair for putting words eloquently, drooling over your dictionary for expressions most people don't use; it doesn't make your opinion higher than mine or his or hers. I think you are a fake Christian. What do I mean by that? I would like to hear you confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. That he was the lamb of God that was crucified and thus sacrified to cover our sins. That Jesus Christ is eternal, that he created the universe, and that his earthly body was resurrected from the dead on the third day. Anyone can say "I'm a Christian", but what do you really believe and why. I believe in God because of all the physical evidence of a young earth, and I believe in Christ because of the necessity of a Saviour since we've all sinned. I believe in Christ because if the earth is young then evolution could not have taken place and there must've been a Creator and that Creator must have an awareness, a personality, a will. What is God's will? Is it the will of Allah, that we kill each other? Well, the moslems believe in an old earth so their book can't be right. And the Hindu religion is too far from logic and reality. The only faith that fits into this young earth span is the old Hebrew religion. So should I become a jew? Well, their ancient book speaks of a Messiah. So who is he? Apparently the life of Jesus Christ is very consistent with the old Hebrew predictions in the Torah. Hm. Exceptionally consistent even. Additionally his teachings are timeless and apply even to our modern lives. The first Adam, the last Adam. Oh yes this makes perfect sense. I am a sinner and I need to change my ways - for myself, my brethren, and out of gratitude for God's loving gesture of sacrificing himself for his children.<BR/><BR/>What's your agenda? <BR/><BR/>/MattiasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-74509281578915987402007-07-08T06:15:00.000+10:002007-07-08T06:15:00.000+10:00There have been several comments regarding science...There have been several comments regarding science that so qualifies the discipline, as to leave more room for alternatives than truth allows.<BR/><BR/>"I'm a Christian - I'm not a young earther, but neither am I convinced that current scientific understanding is adequate to know the age of the earth for sure."<BR/><BR/>You do not need to be convinced. The evidence is available. Either you read the body of evidence and know, or you pick snippets and form intelligent but uninformed opinions. Both acknowledge the data, but the latter leaves room for comments as above.<BR/><BR/>Do scientists know the date the earth was formed? No, but the evidence shows an age of 4.6 billion years. Might new data show 4.7 - maybe. The point is, the evidence says the earth isn't 20 million years old, or 4 million years old, or 6,000 years old. I know the age of the earth.<BR/><BR/>Data told Galileo that the earth was not the center of the solar system. He did not have enough data to correctly determine the true planetary orbits. Does this lack of complete data make him wrong? No. Take the data and evidence he generated, and there are some things he knew - helocentric solar system- and some things he predicted, near circular orbits. Newton built on that data... and so on.<BR/><BR/>It is a process that is well known and proven. Get evidence for point a, predict point b. Experiment, get more evidence until you prove b. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE B FOR A TO BE CORRECT! In other words, I do not have to know how the first life in earth started, to know how it developed, (Evolution), nor do I need to know the day the earth was born, to know it is approximately 4.6 billion years old. If the current science is off by 2%, that does not lead to "know the age of the earth for sure." What does the comment even mean? To the minute? To the milisecond?<BR/><BR/>You might desire to put facts in the same bucket as faith... i.e. God is a mystery - the world is a mystery.<BR/>You may. There is nothing stopping you, but you are wrong. Evolution, the age of the earth, the speed of light, and gravity, are all MEASURABLE. Yes, there are differing opinions on new developments... but either know the evidence - the proof, or get off the pot.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Belief has more to do with desire, what a person wants to be true, than it does with knowledge. Again, nothing wrong with it, so long as it is not applied to data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-88952287036959103242007-07-07T09:00:00.000+10:002007-07-07T09:00:00.000+10:00Hi NickI appreciate what you're saying, but my ori...Hi Nick<BR/>I appreciate what you're saying, but my original point was more about the fact that science is continually advancing, and more often then not ideas or models that are held to be true due to the limits of our observations are later shown to be completely false, or at least substantially lacking. Ptolemy's geocentricity being case-in-point. Useful, yes. An acurate description of the universe? Not at all.<BR/>"The Church" (organisation) of the day obviously liked the idea of geocentrism - they just didn't want to let it go when science advanced because it had become dogma. Mind you - just to play the other side of the argument for a moment, it is entirely plauible (albeit completely unlikely) that if the universe is found to have finite boundaries, that the earth *could* be the center of the universe, and everything else just kind of wobbles around it. Again - that would be a case of our current limits of observation not giving us the full picture. Mind you, I don't actually think this is the case.<BR/><BR/>I'm a Christian - I'm not a young earther, but neither am I convinced that current scientific understanding is adequate to know the age of the earth for sure. I don't staunchly believe that God created two literal humans called Adam and Eve and the entire human race sprung from there, but nor am I willing to accept Dawkins' accertion that the evolution of man can now be considered fact (cue flames, but I do have my reasons). He may be right, but at the moment I don't think there's adequate proof to say he's not wrong.<BR/><BR/>However, my whole issue is less about facts and more about humility. We've all been wrong before. The most established of knowlege has fallen on it's head before fresh discovery. You yourself acknowledged science will accept when it gets something wrong. Therefore, let's keep our knowledge in perspective, and following on from that, let's not go out of way to ridicule those who disagree - no matter how crazy their ideas. A simple presentation of your opposing thoughts (sans sarcasm, belittling, etc.) is all that is required to convince those who are willing to listen. Those that aren't are not going to have their mind changed through ridicule - it will just make them dig their heels in all the more.<BR/><BR/>Anyway - that's my reason for being in this debate at all. If my science or history (or spelling) is less then accurate, I apologise. But unless you can demonstrate that science has never been wrong, my point still stands. Humility is more important. You might just be wrong.Justin Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995847102962013980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-59343246273567955172007-07-07T03:58:00.000+10:002007-07-07T03:58:00.000+10:00You know, the soy-makes-you-gay meme has percolate...You know, the soy-makes-you-gay meme has percolated all the way up to <A HREF="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327" REL="nofollow">WorldNetDaily</A>. Why, it's practically mainstream.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-77852390004884419732007-07-06T23:47:00.000+10:002007-07-06T23:47:00.000+10:00The other comments here scare me. To think that th...The other comments here scare me. To think that these people live in first world countries with advanced technology, but fear fluoridation as mind-control, boggles my mind.<BR/><BR/>I thought science was going to get rid of superstition...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-17750429375983071412007-07-06T21:03:00.000+10:002007-07-06T21:03:00.000+10:00"Ptolemy wasn't an astonomer? Because it was he wh..."Ptolemy wasn't an astonomer? Because it was he who first fleshed out geocentricity, known as the Ptolemic system. You'll note that Wikipedia's description of him says he was "...a Hellenistic mathematician, geographer, astronomer, and astrologer who lived in Roman Egypt" as opposed to "some unscientific religious nut who believed scripture in the face of science.""<BR/><BR/>You're accidentally undermining your own point here, I think.<BR/><BR/>Ptolemy derived the geocentric model through research and analysis, and devised a theoretical model to explain the movement of things like shadows and celestial bodies. Even though it didn't reflect astronomical reality, the model was a useful means of understanding a natural phenomenon. Now, before you claim special pleading, look at other discredited theories that were technically incorrect but still useful models: for example, Newton's law of gravity and laws of motion, the phlogiston theory, and all the atomic models leading up to the present. The geocentric model is still useful today for local calculations; you don't need to account for the revolution of the Earth around the sun if you want to calculate your car's acceleration.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church in the time of Galileo Galilei simply declared geocentrism to be true by fiat, refusing altogether to acknowledge any competing views like Copernican heliocentrism (which, incidentally, has also been superceded by a more general system where the sun revolves around the galaxy's center).<BR/><BR/>Ptolemy's derivations and the Church's declarations are fundamentally different. There's a vast difference between a flawed scientific model and a religious tenet that flies in the face of reailty. Science is concerned with models, not Universal Truth; it acknowledges when it gets something wrong, as the history of astronomy (and all the other sciences) shows. Religion too often refuses to allow any sort of debate, even in the face of a preponderance of contrary evidence.Schwartz G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06210051961513008532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-33544049358274659212007-07-06T13:41:00.000+10:002007-07-06T13:41:00.000+10:00One more (thanks Nathan for letting these through ...One more (thanks Nathan for letting these through thus far):<BR/><BR/>To everyone who thinks my first comment was "Christians shouldn't question other Christian's beliefs about stuff", it's not that at all. I just don't agree with the idea that someone's beliefs, no matter how crazy, need to be publically demolished in a blaze of spite. You hear what they say, and think "wow, that's messed up" - what then compels you to take the step of public ridicule? Where is the need? They're people, and ridicule is unnecissary.<BR/><BR/>I know Nathan offline and we've hung out on numbers of occasions. We disagree on stuff, and that's OK. But I would be phenominally mortified if he posted a rant like this about me and my beliefs, be they far more moderate then this Hovind guy. Why is it necissary? To further a personal crusade? Convince people "you're right, and he's wrong"? Improve the image of science in the eyes of the religious "fundys"? What does it achieve? How many people who believe these things that most would identify as untrue will change their minds due to this sarcasm-loaded post? Who are you appealing to, because to me, it reads like an opportunity to laugh at someone else's expense with your "buddies" who sympathise with your cause. Yep - I agree this guy's beliefs are over-the-top. But why not just leave him be? Most will identify the problems you and I both see in his teachings, and will steer clear. Those that don't are not going to be swayed by this kind of post, are they? Honestly?<BR/><BR/>I'm happy to go away now if everyone is happy to pretend like I wasn't here. I'm done with all of this... Obviously fact trumps compassion, and the most important thing in life is making sure everyone knows just how right you are. I'm not really into that.Justin Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995847102962013980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-25635938343451395462007-07-06T12:48:00.000+10:002007-07-06T12:48:00.000+10:00shap said:"Religion told us that the Sun revolves ...shap said:<BR/>"Religion told us that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's mentioned in the bible (which, by the way, is never wrong)<BR/><BR/>Science was responsible for proving that the Earth, in fact, revolves around the Sun.<BR/><BR/>Nice try, though. Better luck next time."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy" REL="nofollow">Ptolemy</A> wasn't an astonomer? Because it was he who first fleshed out geocentricity, known as the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism#Claudius_Ptolemy" REL="nofollow">Ptolemic system.</A> You'll note that Wikipedia's description of him says he was "...a Hellenistic mathematician, geographer, astronomer, and astrologer who lived in Roman Egypt" as opposed to "some unscientific religious nut who believed scripture in the face of science."<BR/><BR/>The same (however somewhat more progressed) science Ptolemy practiced later proved his hypothesis false, but at the time the limits of his ability to observe told him the sun circled the earth.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and you're an arrogent tool. Just needed to add that. Nice try though. Better luck next time.Justin Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995847102962013980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-87239568047725459352007-07-06T11:01:00.000+10:002007-07-06T11:01:00.000+10:00Bravo! On another note, some stupid code is causin...Bravo! <BR/><BR/>On another note, some stupid code is causing the comments page to refresh over and over, making it hard to make a comment. I had to write this in notepad and paste it in. If you get that, hit the stop key.martyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17533478185551675997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-79025770731915547142007-07-06T09:44:00.001+10:002007-07-06T09:44:00.001+10:00Lastly, this the subject of water fluoridation:The...Lastly, this the subject of water fluoridation:<BR/><BR/>The American Dental Association:<BR/>"Since 1950, the ADA has unreservedly endorsed the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective, and necessary in preventing tooth decay."<BR/><BR/>The Centre for Disease Control:<BR/>"CDC has recognized the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental decay as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Over the past 60 years, optimal fluoridation of community drinking water has been a major factor for the decline in rates of tooth decay."<BR/><BR/>The U.S Surgeon General:<BR/>“Community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community. A person’s income level or ability to receive routine dental care is not a barrier to receiving fluoridation’s health benefits. Water fluoridation is a powerful strategy in our efforts to eliminate differences in health among people and is consistent with my emphasis on the importance of prevention.” Vice Admiral Richard Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S., 2002-2006"<BR/><BR/>To answer a previous question: All Australian drinking water is fluoridated, and has been since the 1950's. Australians, if I might say so, seem a good deal healthier and less prone to "mind control" than Americans.<BR/><BR/>I think what this boils down to is the idea that "Your right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."<BR/>If you want to live in paranoid fear of your own Government, legal system, and doctors, fine.<BR/><BR/>Just don't drag us along with you.Nathan Zamprognohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-9951492690751053072007-07-06T09:44:00.000+10:002007-07-06T09:44:00.000+10:00Also:To CreationCD:I stand by every word you have ...Also:<BR/><BR/>To CreationCD:<BR/>I stand by every word you have expertly Googled on me. Yes, I have appeared on TV and Radio and have been trenchantly critical of Young Earth Creationism. Yes, I am angry at Creationist's presumption to speak on my behalf, and regard the internecine war between AiG and CMI (which I did not start, but merely comment upon) as unsurprising in the least.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am employed at a Christian School but emphasise that I voice here my own opinions and not that of my employer. I presume all you here are doing as much?<BR/><BR/>Yes, our Christian School says, in its "Teaching of Origins" policy:<BR/>"Some Christians (often described as "young earth creationists") believe that certain dating procedures and catastrophic processes support the idea of a young earth. However, the balance of physical evidence does not appear to support a young earth. We do not believe that scripture helps us to decide how old the earth is."<BR/><BR/>I am a hearty supporter of our Christian School's stance and regard it as enlightened and harmonious with Christianity. You will probably regard it as "compromised" or "dangerous" or "deluded" but how dare you: at least we don't go around foaming at the mouth claiming the Government flies planes into buildings.<BR/><BR/>CreationCD asks "two Koalas swam to Australia from Turkey, without eating along the way…, do you actually know any creationist that teach this?"<BR/><BR/>Yes. Kent Hovind. So do both of the biggest Creationist organisations: Answers in Genesis and their (former) Australian Parent, CMI:<BR/>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf<BR/><BR/>"One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did... This again would mean several centuries for animals to disperse, in this instance without the necessity of land bridges."<BR/><BR/>And this, despite:<BR/>"...severe practical limitations on our attempts to understand <BR/>the hows and whys of something that happened once, was not recorded <BR/>in detail, and cannot be repeated. Difficulties ...result from our limited understanding... Because of this, the patterns of post-Flood animal migration present some problems and research challenges for the Biblical creation model."<BR/>and<BR/>"Some problems are more difficult to solve. For instance, there are creatures that require special conditions or a very specialized diet."<BR/><BR/>A classic case of faith trumping proof, even when there is an admission of the implausibility of the claims.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am a member of an Assemblies of God Church but largely agree with CreationCD on the doctrinal issues he raises over Pentacostalism. Having been in this Church for 19 years (including on the staff), my wife and I have started enjoying increased fellowship among friends from a local Baptist church and may at some point move over, our first change in fellowship in our lives.<BR/> Irrelevant, but I'm happy to be open to establish my bona-fides.Nathan Zamprognohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7776184.post-49496640193433182912007-07-06T09:43:00.000+10:002007-07-06T09:43:00.000+10:00Also:I could have scarcely have hoped that the res...Also:<BR/><BR/>I could have scarcely have hoped that the responses to my challenge (and yes, it is a challenge to the contributors to this forum and not mere invective for my personal gratification) would have so amply reinforced my point.<BR/><BR/>In turn:<BR/><BR/>No, I am not a "Catholict", or even a Catholic. Assemblies of God In Australia for 19 years.<BR/><BR/>No, I do not believe you are a "heretic" if you don't believe in Evolution. This stands in contrast to many here who regard literal 6000 year ago, 6 day creation as co-equal in importance to a belief in Jesus as Lord for not only salvation, but as evidence of divine rather than diabolical motivation.<BR/><BR/>No, I am not a U.S Citizen, but I admire the founding principals of your nation and it's Christian basis. Citizens within the British Commonwealth need not style themselves as British Subjects (and certainly not as English ones) but I am very proud of our British (and again, Christian) heritage while retaining a robust Australian patriotism. My suggestion, in your July 4th celebratory week, is to suggest that Kent's spurning of U.S Citizenship for mere financial expediency says a lot about whether he's worth supporting by U.S Patriots.<BR/><BR/>I am chastised for ridiculing "fellow brethren". Let's choose a historical analogy from Church history. In the early centuries of Christianity there scores of heresies... Valentinism, pelagianism, docetism, nestorianism. To confront each of these errors, which were doubtlessly believed with sincerity, and arrive at what we now regard as orthodox doctrine, of necessity involved argument, and probably some personal grievance was engendered in the process. Was this rule, to "go easy" on fellow believers enough to negate the need to call a spade a spade?<BR/><BR/>There is plenty of Scriptural justification to Christians to confront error. I think I'm correctly motivated, and so do you. However, I happen to be right, based on a reasonable belief that George Bush did not order 9/11, fluoridation of drinking water is not a form of mind control, etc.<BR/><BR/>This, then, leaves the question of the "spirit" of my motivation. Again, I profess to be a sincere Christian, and to argue otherwise is ad-hominem and irrelevant to the debate. Perhaps when a Christian brother points out you're being gullible it causes more discomfort than regular "secular" criticism? <BR/><BR/>Next: It may have *once* been clear to "any intelligent person" that we lived in a geocentric universe, but that was precisely because an intelligent person interprets *all* the available evidence to reach the most reasonable conclusion. At that time in history, before the telescope or the codification of mathematics of motion among gravitating bodies, it was an entirely reasonable conclusion. Now, with more evidence, a different conclusion is inescapable. The current evidence concludes the Earth is Billions of years old, and only wilful ignorance of that evidence can conclude otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Moving on: edwatson provides a bravura confirmation of my central challenge. Let's dissect.<BR/>I am in a "demonic stupor" who "loves sin" and "Hell awaits scoffers" like me who should "forsake (my) delusions" because "God is angry at the wicked" while I take "sick pleasure to watch and lecture" you, and this is because, anyone?<BR/>- Vaccination is bad,<BR/>- Fluoridation is bad (and can someone, just once, *please* spell that correctly?)<BR/>- Soy is bad,<BR/>- 9/11 was a conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>I could almost rest my case, but for the contribution of Australian Philip-George... oh my...<BR/><BR/>I call his bluff. After wondering about this for a while I challenge my fellow Aussie, the 46 year old Mr Muir from Melbourne to admit he has been pulling our leg all along. Surely he wanted to see how much of his asinine doublespeak this forum would take before twigging that it was all calculated nonsense. Where to begin?<BR/><BR/>Muir starts by asking, simply enough<BR/>> 'Is the question “Do you understand the charges?” the same as “Do you comprehend these accusations?”'<BR/><BR/>Rather than answer with the short, obvious and correct answer of "yes", Muir tortures logic to end up with:<BR/><BR/>> “Do you presume to take a maritime commercial material liability onto your trading vessel in the form of the persona you are presuming to take possession of”<BR/><BR/>???!!! Bring the straitjackets. I think "yes" was the better answer, don't you think? Surely this is offered in jest?<BR/><BR/>Muir is happy to call himself a casuist. Here's where he reveals himself as a prankster, clear to anyone with a dictionary:<BR/><BR/>"Casuist: A person who uses clever but unsound reasoning, esp. in relation to moral questions. A Sophist"<BR/>(A Sophist additionally being "A person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments")<BR/>(with thanks to the good old Oxford American)<BR/><BR/>Yes. That fits Mr Muir nicely.Nathan Zamprognohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292757767183001630noreply@blogger.com