You cannot pick and choose your god. The whole of Christianity - without exception - recognizes only ONE true God, therefore it is unfair (as well as incorrect) to single out 'creationists' alone for excluding other alleged gods. I would have thought it quite obvious why Christians do not worship the Mayan god, or Hindu god - or any other alleged god for that matter. Furthermore, the creationists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (sadly, some compromising 'Christians' do not) so it is difficult to see how creationists could 'interpret' scripture wrongly. They are reading God's Word straightforwardly, and strictly as God gave it to the various writers of the scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when God says He created in six days, creationists believe this to be the literal truth, and they do not use human reasoning to then say: "Yes, but obviously what God really meant to say here was that he created over billions of years". Hebrew scholars, the best in the world, all agree that Genesis means exactly what it says - creation in six literal days.
There was a time, in Britain, when almost everyone believed the Genesis account to be true. Then, naturalistic 'scientists' started to pronounce differently. Inevitably, the church bowed to the 'authority' of these scientists, and many ministers departed from their faith. Scientists have since revised their opinions numerous times (and have rejected many of their own earlier notions) but unfortunately some branches of the established church have failed to notice this, or to keep abreast of the ever-changing scientific theories, so they remain completely compromised, and firmly stuck in their 1800's position (which was when Darwin & Co put the cat among their theological pigeons).
Ironically, most geologists have moved on from the fanciful ideas prevalent in Darwin's day, and now hold to a modern theory called Neo-Catastrophism - which essentially means that a world-wide catastrophic flood of 'biblical' proportions was responsible for laying down the massive rock and fossil layers seen all around the world today (analogous to Noah's flood!) which, of course, is what the creationists - who interpret God's Word literally - have been telling everyone all along!
The established church [mainly the Anglicans and Catholics] would have been much better sticking to their biblical guns 200 years ago, because it seems they already had it right. Today, the church is hopelessly divided on the matter of big bang, evolution, morality, etc, and only the creationists are left carrying the torch for God (which is probably why they are so despised, especially among atheists). Of course the established church has only got itself to blame for allowing its misplaced faith in the emerging scientific 'revolution' to take precedence over faith in God, thereby dynamiting its own foundations. I hope this helps.
So I guess there are no pictures of woodlouse fossils changing into anything else then (nor of any other animal, for that matter) which is why many PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS are opposed to this kind of unsupported nonsense being forcibly taught in our UK schools. For example, most textbooks state that dinosaurs 'evolved' into birds, yet we now know that dinosaurs actually ATE them (because birds lived at the same time, already fully formed). See here, for example:
Thornhill, T., First proof of bird-eating dinosaur has scientists in a flap, www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064952/Microraptor-First-proof-bird-eating-dinosaur-scientists-flap.html, 23 November 2011.
You are entitled to your opinion, namely that, "it is quite clear that you have no idea what you are writing about" but I have to disagree with your assessment. I know EXACTLY what I am writing about and I have the experience and scientific qualifications to back it up. If you regard my comments, or links, as "misinformation" then you are slighting those PhD scientists who produced the research in the first place - not all of whom are 'Creationists' as you would label them. Science simply follows the evidence wherever it may lead. If you happen to disagree with that evidence (because of your rigid, blinkered, evolutionary/Humanist mindset) that is your prerogative, but please do not insist on our UK schools infecting innocent children's minds with this kind of diabolical nonsense. One thing that is coming out of this tiresome dialogue with you is that all you have going for you is a typical atheistic 'Ya-boo-hiss' invective, while at the same time producing NO scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to support your many bald assertions or to inform other intelligent readers in this debate. I'm sorry, but Darwin's knickers are completely threadbare, and each time you write another a vacuous post, you are simply lifting his skirt higher for all the world to see.
If I got up one morning and found that someone had scrawled all over my living room walls I would be right to conclude that someone "did it." It would be truly "infantile" to ignore this as a possibility, and assume, instead, that somehow the living room "did it" all by itself while I wasn't watching. That attitude would be truly "lazy" and would not advance my "knowledge and understanding" of who the real culprit might be. It would furthermore be grossly unscientific. If I were to habitually think in such a way (rather than "using [my] brain to figure out the mechanism") it might actually harm my future job prospects.
Macroevolution cannot be replicated, nor can Big Bang, so we seem to have a problem with 'science' here, according to your own definition given in para 1.
The Person who initially created the principles that subsequently govern phenomena is the same Person most of us call God. Principles have never been observed to create themselves out of nothing. From where, then, did the numerous principles governing observable phenomena first arise, and how? All roads seem to bring us back to God, no matter how much some people seem to dislike the idea.
If the earth were as old as lots of people seem to believe, there would be adequate evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record which COULD then be observed. But the fact remains that all of the predicted transitional fossils are notably MISSING. The vast majority of fossils show no change at all when compared to their modern counterparts. I do not see how this can equate to a "mountain of evidence" for macroevolution. And that's assuming you have already got past the problem (which you have already graciously acknowledged) of abiogenesis. Doesn't all of this tell you something?
Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.
I sympathize with your problem. But the problem is, you have confused creationists with theistic evolutionists! They are the ones that say that evolution occurred, but God guided it. He didn't. He created EX NIHILO, from scratch, in the beginning (that's pure creationist thinking; theistic evolution is merely a compromise position by those who have departed from their Bible). For a view of what creationist biology might actually look like, I suggest you start here. I believe you will find it quite interesting:
Ah, a Humanist, that explains a lot. Woodlice first appear in the fossil record 50 million years ago, and remain unchanged to this day, i.e STASIS, not evolution (as in every other case in the fossil record). If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here. Or did you mean a trilobite by any chance? If so, I would expect a PhD geology student to know the difference between a woodlouse and a trilobite (and trilobites didn't evolve into anything else either - they just became extinct).
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) actually poses problems for Big Bang. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the most recent findings from 2001, so I suggest you start learning about it here:
Furthermore, the CMB merely PRESUPPOSES a big bang in the first place (and big bang is by no means certain - as many astrophysicists will tell you), so there are many assumptions involved in drawing inferences from it. The CMB is also very smooth - contrary to big bang predictions - and the observed mass density does not agree with big bang predictions either. There is no evidence, observational or otherwise, to prove that a big bang actually occurred (which is why many scientist disbelieve in it) nor is there any definitive evidence that the universe is billions of years old (I think that old chestnut arose from uniformitarian geologists' misguided counting of strata, mistakenly believing each layer to have been laid down over 'millions of years', even though recent laboratory experiments as well as direct field observation, have proved it can happen in hours or days).
Like any typical atheist (even though you describe yourself here as a Secular Humanist)you refer to "Christian violence that occurred in Europe centuries ago", forgetting of course that the most appalling violence, including mass genocide, took place in modern history at the hands of exclusively atheistic regimes, all of whose despotic leaders followed Darwinian theories completely (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau Tse Tung, etc).
As it happens, I am from the UK too (and I'm an astrophysics major). You are free to refute the "supposed existence" of God in your own home, but please do not try to impose your own secular values on me, or on other people of faith in the UK, and especially not on my child's chance of benefiting from a decent indoctrination-free education. That's something I WILL defend, vigorously.
And what exactly has evolution got to do with Science and Engineering? Name one advance in your own field that has been made by an evolutionist? And why do you find the teaching of creationism in a scientific context abhorrent? I think you are mistakenly confusing or conflating the theology with the science. The latter is based on empirical evidence, research, and peer reviewed papers, and as such cannot be disputed even by you. Science classes are for the teaching of science, not origins (especially not alleged 'evolutionary' origins).
I suppose you would advocate the teaching in schools of man-made global warming as well, despite the fact that it has been adequately exposed over and over again as a complete and utter fraud, with data fiddled by mainstream 'scientists' to purposely deceive the public for political and other reasons - see the many books exposing the global warming fraud including this one:
Pseudoscience is any science subject that presented to the public AS FACT in the face of solid contradictory evidence or even with no evidence at all. Darwinian evolution (along with its many deceptions, e.g., the alleged 'evolution' of the horse, recapitulation theory, the peppered moth, and outright frauds such as Piltdown man) falls into the category of pseudoscience. Creation science is operational science carried out by PhD scientists who have contributed much to our understanding. Without them we would still be laboring under the mistaken belief that radiometric dating (along with its "millions" of years of supposed earth history) was exact science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google, for example, RATE research (radio activity and the age of the earth), or this:
If, as you say, pseudoscience is "banned" then why is evolution still being taught in schools? Why are students not allowed to question it or even be made aware of the many difficulties associated with it? Why can students not be told of any physical evidence, arguments, or other data that contradicts this bankrupt theory? All of this smacks of cover-up so that students cannot not see the desperately threadbare state of Darwin's knickers. (note to self: make 'Darwin's Knickers' the title of my next book. Or maybe call it 'Knickers to Darwin'. Hmm . . .)
Just one of the scientific discoveries pointing to a young earth (which you describe as being 'bogus', and without evidence) was found recently by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist, not a creationist, and can be found here along with photographs. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
How would you explain this, makomk?
Glad to see that some of them are taking their religious convictions (as well as their science) seriously, and are not bowing down to the sacred cow of Darwinism. The students you refer to don't know how lucky they are to have such principled teachers. Although those teachers may not hold to the consensus view, they are no doubt aware that the history of science has frequently shown the 'consensus view' to have previously been completely wrong (think hand-washing and germs, for example). Scientist are already reaching a similar conclusion with respect to Darwinian evolution, which is why secular activists, and atheists, have had to campaign vigorously to have their pet theory enforced in the classroom by BY LAW (rather than because the theory has any scientific merit, let alone evidence). If more people invested some time in examining the most up-to-date scientific evidence we would not be having these debates. There is no agency known to mankind whereby a simple cell - let alone an entire universe - can arise out of nothing and without a first cause. NONE. It has never been demonstrated in any laboratory on earth and it never will be. We should confine our teaching to operational (i.e. observable and repeatable) science in the science classroom, and not resort to teaching our children science fictions. Questions about the origin of life should be confined to history, R.E., or philosophy lessons, but even then, BOTH sides of the argument must be explored. We must teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
The reason why wives are to submit themselves to their husbands is because the Bible actually SAYS SO - or didn't you read the Bible when you were at Catholic school?
(It stems from the fact that Adam was created first, and Eve second.) The fact remains that, if more people actually read their Bible, and used it as their moral compass, our world would not be in the mess it is in today. However, I do agree with you that "scientific nonsense" should not be taught in schools. This should of course include any alleged scientific theory that says that life sprang from nothing (This has never been observed in ANY laboratory anywhere in the world and totally contradicts the known laws of biochemistry), and that 'simple' organisms have changed from one form into another more complex form over time. There is ZERO fossil evidence for this fairy tale (all of the fossil evidence refutes it, and shows that STASIS is the rule [i.e. no change]), and almost any molecular biologist will now tell you that this kind of change is impossible anyway - which is why many of them are now abandoning Darwinism).
The fact that you use the term "creationist nonsense" shows that you are either (a) an outright atheist, or (b) have not bothered to study elementary science, much less the Bible, despite your apparent Christian schooling. You are therefore not qualified to make such a comment.
Perhaps the Catholic Church would like to enlighten us evolutionary skeptics as to precisely what scientific discoveries "in later years have substantially strengthened the theory"? Evolutionist are abandoning Darwinian theory in droves (check it out for yourself by googleing the Altenberg 16, or The Third Way, for example) because their bankrupt theory has no explanatory power whatsoever. Then there is also the small problem of the recent discovery of soft tissue, blood cells, collagen, DNA and significant amounts of carbon-14 in dinosaur bones, which proves that they cannot be millions of years old (the discovery was made by an evolutionist by the way, not a Creationist. Most people will be unaware of this discovery, of course, because anything that contradicts the prevailing dogma does not get any media attention, and secularists try very hard to cover it up anyway).
You see, when the established church falls into compromise, abandons its belief in the Bible, and sells its own soul to the devil, we should hardly be surprised if our children end up being forcibly indoctrinated by atheists.
The Catholic Church (and the Anglicans - who are just as bad in this respect) need to look more closely at what the scientific evidence ACTUALLY says. Most of that evidence is posted on various creationist websites such as Creation Ministries International.com. Just choose your topic of interest and type it into their search box. Your eyes will be opened as to what is actually being withheld from you by the so-called scientific "consensus". God bless.
There was a time, in Britain, when almost everyone believed the Genesis account to be true. Then, naturalistic 'scientists' started to pronounce differently. Inevitably, the church bowed to the 'authority' of these scientists, and many ministers departed from their faith. Scientists have since revised their opinions numerous times (and have rejected many of their own earlier notions) but unfortunately some branches of the established church have failed to notice this, or to keep abreast of the ever-changing scientific theories, so they remain completely compromised, and firmly stuck in their 1800's position (which was when Darwin & Co put the cat among their theological pigeons).
Ironically, most geologists have moved on from the fanciful ideas prevalent in Darwin's day, and now hold to a modern theory called Neo-Catastrophism - which essentially means that a world-wide catastrophic flood of 'biblical' proportions was responsible for laying down the massive rock and fossil layers seen all around the world today (analogous to Noah's flood!) which, of course, is what the creationists - who interpret God's Word literally - have been telling everyone all along!
The established church [mainly the Anglicans and Catholics] would have been much better sticking to their biblical guns 200 years ago, because it seems they already had it right. Today, the church is hopelessly divided on the matter of big bang, evolution, morality, etc, and only the creationists are left carrying the torch for God (which is probably why they are so despised, especially among atheists). Of course the established church has only got itself to blame for allowing its misplaced faith in the emerging scientific 'revolution' to take precedence over faith in God, thereby dynamiting its own foundations. I hope this helps.