What did they say in that quote that was disrespectful to somebody's religious views?Redhawkmillenium said:
Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views
- Thread starter Rhykker
- Start date
rhizhim said:
Huh, that's interesting. I wonder what the bible would say about this....
"Jesus said to him, "if you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven" -Matthew, 19:21
"And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" -Matthew 19:23-24
"Then the Righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed the, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King [God] will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my Bretheren you did it for me" -Matthew 25:37-41
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied" -Luke 6:20-21
"Woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger" -Luke 6:24-25
"Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" -Luke 6:30
""But as Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the inkeeper saying, 'take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back' Which of these three, do you think proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "the one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him "Go and do likewise." -Luke 10:33-37
"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind and you will be plessed because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the Just."" -Luke 15:13-14
"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" [...] And when Jesus heart it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me". -Luke 19:18-19, 22-23
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you" John 14:34
Oh, but silly me. I'm sure the people building "Noah's Ark" know far more about Christianity than I do.
I think creationism is a bit of a misnomer. Ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey. When I first heard the term "creationist" I thought it meant someone who believes or think the universes had sentient influence. The idea and concept that god created the universe isn't really that bad nor does in actually contradict the scientific method. However a creationist is associated more with religions beliefs rather then just an idea that evolution might have some deliberate programing to it.
Don't creationists have entire radio frequencies/TV channels to put their own views forward already? Ones that don't allow a counter view to be put forward?
Not rhetorical, I'm not american so I don't know, I just assumed it to be the case.
If that is indeed true, then it's a bit fucking cheeky to ask "The enemy" on their regular, every day, based-on-observable-and-demonstrable-fact science shows to host creationism viewpoints or act like what they talk about on such a show isn't backed up by an entire disciplines research.
Me? yeah, I buy into the science version of it all. For all I care, you can believe we all got shat out by a giant space amoeba if you want, just don't demand I even pretend I believe your crazy ass beliefs.
Also
Not rhetorical, I'm not american so I don't know, I just assumed it to be the case.
If that is indeed true, then it's a bit fucking cheeky to ask "The enemy" on their regular, every day, based-on-observable-and-demonstrable-fact science shows to host creationism viewpoints or act like what they talk about on such a show isn't backed up by an entire disciplines research.
Me? yeah, I buy into the science version of it all. For all I care, you can believe we all got shat out by a giant space amoeba if you want, just don't demand I even pretend I believe your crazy ass beliefs.
Also
Yeah, that's a fair point. The issue is with the insistence is the bible is 100% truth. I'm sure allot of religious folks figure that god made the universe millions of years ago, but the ones causing all this kerfuffle seem to believe that the version of events that has the world as younger than 1000 year's, and are asking people to act like that makes any fucking sense.Magmarock said:
really... calling creationism a "science"
Believe creationism if you wish but stop pretending it's science. creationism is about faith; not scientific evidence.
Believe creationism if you wish but stop pretending it's science. creationism is about faith; not scientific evidence.
I'm pretty sure in order for something to be hypothesis it first has to testable according the scientific definition. calling creationism conjecture might work a bit better or you could just call it a belief.Goliath100 said:
Whether you believe it or not, there is more than enough evidence to disprove, Mr Faulkner. I take it this guy didn't watch the Bill Nye Vs Ken Ham debate.
Anyways, I can understand that they want to have some representation, but when there is nothing scientific worth talking about when it comes to these "theories." It kinda sounds like they're just looking for some support among their piers - understandable, but they have to realize that in the wake of scientific development, religious theories aren't relevant in science anymore. Tough pill to swallow, but it's true.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having beliefs of any kind as long as they don't infringe upon other people; that said, when we're talking about science and fact, creationism, a new earth and any sort of afterlife isn't provable and for 2 of those we have proof to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I think these guys need to understand that big claims require lots of proof.
Anyways, I can understand that they want to have some representation, but when there is nothing scientific worth talking about when it comes to these "theories." It kinda sounds like they're just looking for some support among their piers - understandable, but they have to realize that in the wake of scientific development, religious theories aren't relevant in science anymore. Tough pill to swallow, but it's true.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having beliefs of any kind as long as they don't infringe upon other people; that said, when we're talking about science and fact, creationism, a new earth and any sort of afterlife isn't provable and for 2 of those we have proof to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I think these guys need to understand that big claims require lots of proof.
It's only possible through massive amounts of denial. How else could one believe in something like creationism and yet overwhelming evidence against it is what one has learned and encounters on a daily basis, as well as having as a job to find more and more evidence that contradicts it?Neta said:
Religion and science are completely opposed concepts, like light and dark, good and evil, life and death, and always have been. This is true even though religious people were responsible for the creation of the scientific method to begin with, though that's solely because everybody and his mother were religious back then, so they were the only ones who could have made it if it was ever going to be. As science has expanded our understanding of the universe, religions of all types have been proven false time and time again in every way, and yet somehow there are people that still believe in them.
How about this, when a independent unbiased scientist comes forth with repeatable, accurate scientific proof that the universe was built over the course of 6 days by a omnipotent being that could only be described as a god and that evolution isn't possible, then you can have creationism featured in a show about scientific fact and evidence
Read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion; he quite clearly sets out just how utterly implausible the idea of 'creation' is.
Yeah the way I see it, we've explained many things. Nebulas, the structure of the Earth, physics, evolution, the history of quite a bit of the universe, most of what we can see...Spacemonkey430 said:
God and Religion takes hold in those places where Science doesn't. Where facts are unavailable, and we can only go on what we believe. Did God initiate the Big Bang, or was it something else? Did life form from a random collection of materials, did it fall from an Asteroid, or did some higher intelligence, be it Aliens or God, form it from nothing? Do the beautiful nebulas in space form from random accretions of dust and radiation, or is some gigantic being sculpting it into form like some great artist? Well OK that last one is likely the former but you see my point.
And therein lies the problem. Science is willing to accept that it might be wrong, that it has holes, that there are things it can't yet explain. God and religion end up becoming a slather of wallpaper paste, thrown over the top, seeping into all the cracks and refusing to budge. As the science expands, so the religious argument gets more and more squeezed until it cracks apart.Chessrook44 said:
Why? Because it won't move. Science has advanced in the last 1500 years, but religion is still exactly where it was. And the more clear it becomes that they're fundamentally incompatible, the more of a problem it turns out to be.
Hah! You're thinking of non-American Christianity, there is an increasing disconnect between American Christians (especially evangelicals) and what is normally considered Christian.Under_your_bed said:
Sections of American Christianity, particularly those where praying for wealth, country and victory in war is closer to the ancient Roman belief system rather than the humility and spiritual well-being that characterized ancient and more modern Christian teaching.
The thing is, there's no such thing as a "Creation Scientist" as Creationism isn't science because its methodology is backward.
Actual science follows the scientific method. It looks at all of the evidence, comes up with explanations for that evidence then checks the explanations against all known facts, rechecking when new information arises. Constantly discarding or modifying explanations to better fit with what we know of reality.
Creationism starts with an explanation then looks for evidence to support that explanation, ignoring or dismissing any conflicting information. This is not science no matter how hard some people stomp their feet and insist that it is.
Actual science follows the scientific method. It looks at all of the evidence, comes up with explanations for that evidence then checks the explanations against all known facts, rechecking when new information arises. Constantly discarding or modifying explanations to better fit with what we know of reality.
Creationism starts with an explanation then looks for evidence to support that explanation, ignoring or dismissing any conflicting information. This is not science no matter how hard some people stomp their feet and insist that it is.
'Creationist' generally means just someone who believes in creation, but the way it tends to be used, especially in the US and related to the whole creationism vs evolution -'debate', it tends to mean people who believe in the Bible's version of events.Magmarock said:
They have tried to make their claims sound more scientific, with claims like 'there is an intelligent designer, might be God, might be aliens, we aren't saying.' but it's not like they tend to be accepting of different religions or aliens.
Although even if they didn't make any claims about who or what the intelligent thing is, it's still not any more scientific if you don't have any evidence or actual theories or testable hypotheses.