"A Sabbatical?" or "My Anti-Testimony"
I first posted this "testimony" to the web on July 27, 2001. If you too have found Christianity specifically, or religion generally, to be less than satisfying for any reason, please consider posting your own "testimony" to this site by clicking here , or message me by clicking here. I t is invariably a shock to Evangelical Christians to come across someone who has turned his or her back on the “faith was once delivered unto the saints.” Most believers will quickly dismiss an ex-Christian by piously pointing out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer. Or, as an insider might say it, “They were never born again.” There is Biblical support for the assertion. 1 John 2:19, which addressed the problem of First Century apostates, states that: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us....
CREATION SCIENCE 101:
ReplyDelete"God did it. Class dismissed!"
How many credits? lol!
Sad to think of all the kids getting brainwashed in their homes this very minute.
ReplyDeleteTim
I don't have to time to wait on download of Graphics. As far as I'm concerned after years of extensive research, there's no Gods, no angels, no demons, no devils, no Jesus, no hell, and no heaven. I guess the brainwash will continue whatever the brand of faith religions people want to believe in. It's sad, but it's a fact of life. Even if the majority of believers had positive proof put before them, they would still follow the brainwash because that's how complete the brainwash is.
ReplyDeleteJust the concept---"War on Science", ALONE, sounds absurd.....nevermind, what these idiots stand for.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!
Well, interesting. It appears that, the creationists/IDers need to label evolution as a religion, so they can get it removed from the classroom. Good thing, evolution is a working scientific theory, and creationism/ID is nothing but a dead end hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteBoomslang wrote - <<< Just the concept---"War on Science", ALONE, sounds absurd.....nevermind, what these idiots stand for.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!>>>
Hell - why not? The religion has been in "The War on Reality" ever since its inception.
Lets not forget, that creationism was being taught in public classrooms for years before it was challenged by scientists and teachers in the courts. The initial court case went against the teacher, in favor of creationism. Where were the "facts" then, and why were religious leaders able to influence science to the point that teachers couldn't even teach their subject of expertise.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: "Lets simply look at the facts and interpret them, they are not self-interpreting."
Right, create a hypothesis and test the facts, and derive verifiable and falsifiable conclusions. At this point, there is no difference between ID and science. However, to take the derived information, and "further" hypothesize the "Pre-existence" of the cosmos and the "intelligence" of some "being", or creator, leaves the realm of "interpret the facts".
The question becomes, if ID is just using the facts, supported by science, just like evolution, then how is ID any different than evolution. If there isn't any difference in the data, then why the need to create the term ID?
Evolution doesn't draw conclusions beyond that which can be tested, ID does, that is the answer.
It's good to see David Rabbitborough getting in on it. I thought he may have been purposely keeping away from it for a while there.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with that kind of international respect can be very helpful.
Let's see, what would a true Creationistic Science class teach.
ReplyDeleteI know! God did it! Class dismissed!
There is nothing to study, nothing to examine, nothing to explore in Creationistic pseudo-science. No hypothesis, no working theories, no discover, nothing - it's all "God did it!"
It presupposes that which it intends to prove - a God.
True science says, "How does x work, what natural forces make x happen, how can x be recreated in a laboratory, etc., etc., etc.
Creationism says, "God did it!" Case solved.
Creationism is not science - it assumes a God and goes about to prove God. Science assumes nothing, and goes about to discover the what, where, who, when, and so on.
The two topics are NOT on the same playing field.
Science asks for proof, Creationism asks for belief in a God. Science condemns no one to a burning pit of horrific eternal torture. Creationism is rooted in Christian theology. Science sees the world and all in it as naturally occurring phenomena. Creationism sees the world and all in it as the magical expression of a God.
Creationism is not science, it is religion. Science, as flawed as it no doubt is, does not look to magic from a spiritual dimension to explain reality. Creationism is dependent on a spiritual dimension.
Class dismissed.
Lets not forget, that creationism was being taught in public classrooms for years before it was challenged by scientists and teachers in the courts. The initial court case went against the teacher, in favor of creationism. Where were the "facts" then, and why were religious leaders able to influence science to the point that teachers couldn't even teach their subject of expertise.
ReplyDeleteThe correct method for reaching credible answers, is to create a hypothesis and test the facts, and derive verifiable and falsifiable conclusions. At this point, there is no difference between ID and science. However, to take the derived information, and "further" hypothesize the "Pre-existence" of the cosmos and the "intelligence" of some "being", or creator, leaves the realm of "interpret the facts".
The question becomes, if ID is just using the facts, supported by science, just like evolution, then how is ID any different than evolution. If there isn't any difference in the data, then why the need to create the term ID?
Evolution doesn't draw conclusions beyond that which can be tested, ID does, that is the answer.
"Maybe we should look for these X-ian "good fights" in the near future: "The War on Mathematics"; "The War on Biology"; "The War on Astronomy"; "The War on Logic"; "The War on Knowledge"; "The War on Peace". Brilliant!"
ReplyDeleteActually, it has begun :
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/page/6/