The scientific teachings of christianity

who said christians arent fit to teach in school
Arent you glad that people like this are up there teaching right now?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I hope one of the proper scientists ripped out a fart as this guy spoke
The guy in the centre background looks like he can hardly stop laughing and doent want to be in the same photo as this christian crank

If anyone wonders why I am so vehemently opposed to theism its because of people like this - spouting the gilded crap they come out with - the uninformed nonesense of the insane schizophrenics and other lunatics from the right wing that dont understand modern day technology and science so they fight it !
This guy just needs a coupla pints and a slap around the chops to make him realise he's gone mad - I bet his missus thinks he a nutcase - how could she not - everyonelse does
When I met this guy I pissed in his beer and shat into his hamburger and he never noticed - BTW the man at the very far right of picture is a satanist who opposes christian teachings and his theory is that the devil infact blows them into a ditch

 

LOL

Funniest thing have read in years.
There is no gravity..
God pushes eveything to earth at 32ft ps/ps

You do realise this guy is scamming though.????
Out to make a million for himself.
No human being could actually be so stupid.

Then again....

Occam

 

they find all the best news in the onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54360
mars lander story

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52328
car manufacturing story

 

i hope you know the onion is fake...

 

Hey Columbo, the vast majority of theists would think this guy is insane too. The 'right wing' doesn't speak for more than a few nutjob american christians.

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Its actually kinda sad that a whole generation of internet athiests think Stephen Colbert, The Onion or Landover Baptist are real Christians.

Interestingly, the joke doesnt really make sense considering that modern science is born out of Judeo-Christian world views and cultures.

 

If you mean Judeo-Christo-Islamic, you'd be correct. Algebra was designed by islamic imams. The word is even an arabic word, Al-Jabr.

It's also interesting that when a radical fringe group, like the Southern Baptists, make declaratory statements, interweb atheists think they speak for the entire religion. Really, the majority of christianity believes in science and evolution. It's the official doctrine of several major international churches like the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, and the Methodists. There are a few others as well.

If a member of one of those denominations argues against evolution, they're being a dumbass and going against church doctrine.

 

No.
Im correct if I just use the term 'Christendom' to describe where the modern scientific method came out of.
Obviously 'Judeo' would be in there because the OT Judaism is the foundation for Christianity.

Scientific enlightenment, discovery and innovation were effectively killed by Islams spread over the Middle-East.
This is seen using the 'Look at it' technique: You look at the Arab world from about 600 onward.
Just keeps going backwards and unfortunately, even to this day there is barely a single contribution from the Islamic world.
Not even Oil.. that was found, processed, innovated and the infrastructure and management by Westerners.

No, Islam doesnt get to be included until we see just about anything.. anything at all coming from it.

Its interesting that you think Southern Baptists make declaratory statements.
Landover Baptist is an antichristian website and this article in this topic is another fake.
Im certain that internet atheists couldnt name one declaration from the Southern Baptists without having to Google something instead.

You mentioned two different 'things' and neither are 'believed in'.
At least I dont think you know what you mean by 'believed in'.
Science is one thing unto itself and its a method born out of Christianity.
Yes, it developed largely because Christians did beleive that their God was one of order, rationality and that God could be revealed through his Creation.

Evolution is something you 'believe in' and its not a 'part of science' but rather some belief system that often infiltrates science like the cancer it is.

No it is not.
Not for any of those.
Im not sure who the 'few others' are though.

No. This is not true.
Please stop getting information from 'internet atheists'. Worst source ever.

 

We have this guy here in Canada, name of Stockwell Day, federal Minister of Public Safety or whatever. This guy is an elected Member of Parliament, courtesy of the voters of the Okanagan-Coquihalla riding of British Columbia. Also he is a devout Christian. Anyway, Stockwell is pretty damn sure that the world was created in seven days, six thousand years ago, because if you count through all the 'begats' in the Old Testament and assign an average number of years per generation, such as 25, that's how far back things go.

It does no good to tell Stockwell that limestone forms at about an inch per century in a tropical sea, that with regard to mountain formation,
10,000 feet = 120,000 inches <==> 12,000,000 years in sediment formation
or that that is just the beginning of the geological history, taking into consideration argon dating, isotope facts (proven facts, not theory), and so forth. The real time line for the world, according to geologists, is more like 4,600,000,000 years, a number which makes features such as the Grand Canyon (7,000,000 years) very young indeed.

Stockwell has a biblically correct explanation, I'm sure. Unfortunately I don't have it available here at the moment.

But next to Christian beliefs such as resurrection, virgin birth, walking on water, water changed into wine (pretty good idea) and on and on, the six thousand year world bit is only off by a factor of a million, pretty close indeed...

 

Let me quote William Keeton of Cornell University, Elements of Biological Science, 3rd ed., W. W. Norton & Co., 1983, pages 518-519.

"The recombination that occurs at every generation in a sexually reproducing species often re-establishes genotypes eliminated in the previous generation; this does not happen in asexual organisms. Nevertheless, even very small selection pressures can produce major shifts in gene frequencies in sexually reproducing populations when the time scale is one in which 50,000 years is a rather brief period...
"Mutation of a given gene is very rare and, if the phenotypes in question are influenced by many different genes, it is most unlikely that all would mutate at exactly the same time in a way that would make all the plants [earlier text not quoted] better suited to new environmental conditions. It is far more likely that as a result of natural selection the new phenotypes arose through new combinations of old genes. Thus selection, even in the absence of mutations, can produce new phenotypes. In a very real sense, selection can play a creative role in evolution.

"In sexually reproducing populations, selection determines the direction of change largely by altering the frequencies of genes that arose through random mutation many generations before, thus establishing new gene combinations and gene activities that produce new phenotypes. Mutation is not usually a major directing force in evolution; the principle evolutionary role of new mutations consists in replenishing the store of variability in the gene pool and thereby providing the potential upon which future selection can act."


​

I could have quoted more, but I had the feeling that seven sentences would be about all you could handle. You might miss your TV show. Is Cornell Professor Keeton part of a cancer infilitrating science? Somehow I doubt it.

 

What do you want me to do.. copy and paste some articles by Professors which will explain to you why Keetons theory does not work?
Should I assert that Stockwell Day has science on his side while dirtydog is clearly ignoring all the evidence for a young earth.

I dont mind people copy and pasting if they have some sort of explanation, its part of a discussion etc.
Or add your thoughts and why your referencing it.

Hey.. if you want I dump 400 articles copy and pasted from Scientists too?

Seriously though.. Id encourage you to go paste these crazy theories in the Science section,
or,
There was a good 'Explain the Trilobite' thread in the Christianity forum too.

 

Ikden

Yah. This one posted it.. And you still have not explained the trilobite.

Because, You still cant expain why your god would put trillions of fossils
of creatures that no longer exist. Millions of species.
In the earths crust when he created it in 4004 bc.
Or do you say brontosaurus and TRex roamed the earth in 4000 BC. ???

The agnosticism forum is populated by thinking beings.
Beings that have already found your type of thinking to be false.
Thats why they are here.

Now.. You can reply,,dont forget to call me names and say im on drugs.
[as usual]
lol

Occam

 

Yes, I did explain to you why there would be millions of fossils buried in sedimentary (mud) layers ove the entire planet.
Actually, Genesis explains it.
Its called a Global Flood.

Oh ... oh shit!

 

Ikden

So The Brontosaur Tricerotops and TRex walked the earth in 4000 bc?

yes or no?

Occam

 

Ikden

And again occam points out. There is not enough water on this planet to cover the land mass.
No matter what. it can only cover 75% of the surface.
That leaves the equivalent of all of north and south america above sea level..
DOH

common sense science shows the flood to be a joke.. sorry

Occam

 

Occam isnt 'pointing out anything'.
Occam once saw someone link to a talkorigins article in which one anticreationist made up a theory about water across the planet.
It was based on a whole lot of assumptions, full of holes and hardly something being taken seriously.
Its written for the purpose of being posted in talkorigins FOR internet forum 'evofundies' to go and claim as 'proven scientific fact'.

You dont even know why, what or how anything in that article works or suggests and are not even close to understanding why anything about it makes anything else a 'joke' etc.

But yeah, sorry to inform you but fossils are animals buried in sediment.
That mud later turns into rock.
Its called a global flood.
The word you want to google is 'hydrodynamics' if you want to know more about why a worldwide flood would create all these features, strata, fossils etc.

 

Thanks, Ikden. You and Stockwell would get along just fine; I'm sure you have a lot in common. If you ever move to Canada, you ought to get into politics. You'd fit right in as a Conservative Member of Parliament. (Nothing personal.)

In point of fact my excerpt from Keeton was far too short to really make any points with regard to evolutionary timelines. I was trying to find something relevant concerning the theory of evolution as it stands today. I thought the phrase "the time scale is one in which 50,000 years is a rather brief period" might be of interest.
If the topic is geological timelines, of more interest would be Ben Gadd's book, Handbook of the Canadian Rockies, Corax Press, Jasper, Alberta, 1986. See Chapter 2, "Geology". This 210 page chapter gives a detailed description of how the Canadian Rockies came to be, along with good estimates of how long it took. The phrase 'million years' occurs so often that he abbreviates to 'Ma' (mega annum).



You will be relieved to know that none of the formations mentioned by Gadd are more than 1.5 billion years old, the oldest being Purcell-type sediments:

This is the ancient (1500-1300 Ma) 9-km-thick collection of colorful red and green mudstone and gray limestone found in the southern part of the region, mostly south of Crowsnest Pass in the Waterton area. (op. cit. p. 37)


​

Definitely you've got your mind made up, so I won't bother throwing any more facts at you. However, I wouldn't bother applying to Cornell as a biologist or geologist if I were you. Now get back to your TV set, you're missing Captain Kangaroo.

 

Oh I had my mind made up once before Dirtydog.
I was simply told that the earth was millions of years old (Ma) and that was a 'fact' and that somehow it was simply known to be a proven fact.
Of course it isnt.
But I believed it because it was in a book and someone just said it was a fact so there.

Interestingly you mention the Canadian Rockies and as a wannabe-geologist/paleontologist I spent so many summers up, down and around and even more time in the badlands.
Thats where the real facts of life started to allow me to question things.
Actually.. make you question things.

Years later I was (and still) keep in touch with these guys from Alberta:
http://www.create.ab.ca/d_geology.html

See the difference between you and me is that you believe what your told because you saw it in a book.
I believe because I actually investigated, questioned and experience investigation.
Granted Im lucky to have one of the worlds greatest 'fossil graveyards' in my own backyard.
So did Stockwell Day.
I guess that explains why he was able to question the status quo and see things for himself.

 

I'm not sure just what your beliefs are. I suspect you think the world is 6000 years old because the Bible only has 240 or so 'begats' in the Old Testament. That's Stockwell Day's understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Show me someone with a degree in geology who accepts that theory. Better yet, go to the Drumheller (Alberta) paleontology centre, or any other geology centre open to the public. Ask any geologist or paleontologist about the science behind geological timelines and dating procedures. I'm not a geologist and I don't have a good grasp of the theory. But the theory is not just something I read in a book somewhere. The people who write geology texts don't graduate if they don't understand and follow scientific method and modern experimental design.

By the way, if you drive a car, the gasoline you burn was refined from petroleum, and the petroleum was found by geologists using modern scientific method. Petroleum is the organic remnant of plants that lived many millions of years ago. Don't take my word for it, check it out in the library of your choice.

As far as creation theories are concerned, I don't want to come down too hard on the authors of the Old Testament. They did just fine for scholars living in a pastoral society in the Early Iron Age. Their beliefs were based on a combination of oral tradition and the limited data available to them. The folks who put up your Creation Science website don't have that excuse.

 

Thats would be one reason and the scientific method would be another for why Id accept the 6,000 year mark.

Some people suggest that there may very well be a period of time where the earth could have formed for 'billions of years'.
Ok.
Im not realy that worried about that. I dont argue that much for or against that theory.
However, for the creation of life on earth as we know it, Id go with Stockwell on this.

I dunno, how bout Walt Brown.

Better yet I all but live there and have literally 'lived' in the fossil beds during the summers.
Found fossils that went to the RT (maybe still in there to this day?).
Even got a badge with a dino embroidered on it. Still have it to this day heh.

Yes.
This is something for you to remind yourself.
It squares up with the idea of a worldwide flood and organic 'burial grounds' rapidly encased in sediment.

AIG article complete with a real live Geologist for ya:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

Im sure they would be relieved to know.