General Chat

Gwynne, No there isent an answer to that really, i surpose its each to their own:-))

Wulliam you say God created a perfect world with no death,how do you know ? That was so long ago (if true) how can it be proved ? I would really like to know,I am not being nasty, I would like to know the truth. Maddy

David Owen We only know God because he has revealed Himself as in the verses I quoted and in others. You say: “I also don't believe that the God of the Bible is the only god.” You are then at odds with the God of the bible who said in the verses that I quoted “.....THERE IS NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; a just God and a Saviour; THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE. You choose a god of your imagination. Paul Sahara Smith says “One question. If the world was created in 6 days, how much of that time was spent meticulously creating layers in the earths crust that APPEAR to be billions of years old, rather than a few thousand as the bible implies ?” Paul, if you took the trouble to read the web pages I mentioned, you will see that the layers can be layed down in hours, as was done in the USA 30 years ago. Gwynne. I have not head that one. Most creationists I know believe that the fossils were laid down in the great flood. There was a creationist meeting a couple of years ago held in Darwin College, University of Kent. We have one in Whitstable on April 1st and 2nd. Others are Tomorrow, Preston Lancs 28 Feb, Walworth London 6 Mar Portslade Brighton 9 Mar, Aldwych London 12 Mar, Swanley, Kent 25-26 Mar, Hatfield Herts 29 Mar, Street, Somerset 20-23 April, Swanwick, Derbyshire As well as various locations in the Netherlands and Romania. Regards David

SCIENTISTS SKEPTICAL OF DARWIN. Friday Church News Notes, February 24, 2006 ( The following is an excerpt from '500 Doctoral Scientists Skeptical of Darwin,' WorldNetDaily, Feb. 21: 'More than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution. The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's 'Evolution' series. The PBS promotion claimed 'virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.' ... The institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. ... The statement, signed by 514 scientists, reads: 'We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.' David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, said: 'Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.'' David

The following by David W. Norris is excerpted from The Big Picture: The authority and integrity of the authentic Word of God -- 'With no biblical view of creation there can be no biblical doctrine of salvation. Those believing a theistic version of evolution will not have an orthodox view of salvation and so it is difficult to see how they can be counted among God's people. Where the Genesis 1 to 3 account is not understood to be historical, but above history, a different kind of 'history', those historical events in the New Testament, such as the resurrection of Christ, must also suffer the same exegetical mishandling. Where there is no first Adam, there is no last Adam; where no first man, no second Man. If the first is poetic, so is the second. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 our salvation depends on the events described being real historical events, the beginning as the end. 'And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins' (1 Cor. 15:17). It simply will not do to treat one passage of Scripture in a different way to another. Surely there must be some measure of hermeneutical consistency. Soon there is no place for a literal fall into sin, original sin is denied, and so in this way little by little Christian doctrine unravels.' David

Hi Mandy, from The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Op-Ed) the scientific community does not take Intelligent Design at all seriously. George Gilchrist of the National Center for Science Education conducted a search of all the peer-reviewed scientific journals published since the idea of Intelligent Design came about, and found no articles supporting it. In contrast, he found many thousands of articles supporting evolution. So then, one might wonder, what do all of these Intelligent Design people really want? The answer is quite clear, after taking a look at a document titled 'The Wedge Strategy,' which was leaked by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the main group supporting Intelligent Design, and a subsidiary of the conservative Christian think-tank, the Discovery Institute. The document starts: 'The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. 'Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art. 'The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.' Materialism, here, is a euphemism for modern science. The ironically titled Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture wants nothing less than the destruction of modern science. They even admit this explicitly, saying, 'Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.' They further state: 'If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work.' Intelligent design is primarily a Christian movement, and they admit this as well, writing, 'Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians.' Just a few sentences after their admission that Intelligent Design is a Christian movement, they say, 'We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.' Now it is all clear. The intelligent design movement is an attempt to bring Creationism back into the schools, something that has been outlawed by the Supreme Court, due to its violation of the separation between church and state. Intelligent Design would not really be anything of consequence if it were not for its targeting of public schools. There are plenty of people with crazy ideas, conspiracy theories, and the like, who do not cause anyone any trouble. Unfortunately, Intelligent Design's attack on the separation of church and state in our schools is something to be concerned about. It is a slippery slope, from the teaching of a theory with no scientific backing in the classroom, to school sponsored prayer in the classroom. It may seem like a stretch, but as soon as the line is blurred, it is much easier to rationalize each step until an extreme is reached. But it can be stopped now. As long as people are educated about the lack of scientific evidence in support of Intelligent Design, about its lack of validity as a scientific theory, and about the true motives of those who promote it, this religious movement disguised as science cannot gain a hold on the science classrooms of this country. Full article here - http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520 Gwynne

Mandy - of course its selective information, its from a selective mentality

Each to their own. I have my own beliefs but do not expect anyone else to accept or understand them. Don't push your 'ideas' on to me and I won't push mine onto you! Love becx (Who's RIGHT! lol)

Mandy As has already been said, it is the evolutionists he will brook no criticism. David

Hi Mandy, It is a worry, isn't it? I don't mind if people want to believe the earth is flat and the moon is a balloon, everyone is entitled to believe what they like. But it's quite another thing to expect us to teach it to children. Gwynne

stupidity indeed. Balloon ? Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. Haven't you seen Wallance and Gromit ? ps Mandy, I disagree with you about the birth control bit, don't see anything wrong with that lol

Davo in Kent I obviously didn't make myself clear enough. I believe there is only one higher being and my interpretation of that is the God of the christian church. My understanding of that is based on my upbringing, my experiences of life, my relationship with God and my interpretation of the translation of the Bible that I have read - I haven't read it in its original language. That is not a God chosen of my own imagination. I could equally say to you that you've chosen a God from a lack of imagination because you seem only to believe what you've been told rather than to gain an understanding of God for yourself. Hello Paul:) I've believed for a long time that the earth was created before fossils, dinosaurs & neanderthal man etc, rather than in the 6 days that the Bible says. The Genesis explanation doesn't make much sense to me - largely cos I can't see where Adam's second wife, Abel & Cain's wives came from. Having said that I'm not a great believer in science. It seems that a group of scientists will say 'This is how we date this' and base everything on that - all too theoretical for me. And I have to say that scientists have been disproved far more often than God:))

Hi Mandy, Most teachers here are digging their heels in already. I hope the parents will support us if the time comes. Gwynne

David Owen Sorry if I misunderstood you. I don't agree with you, but you are entitled to your view. David

Suppose there is another, possibly higher, form of life out there in the universe? - There could be, probably is. Would they be loved (by God)as much or more than us? Would they regard us as we now regard chimps, dogs, porpoises or even insects? It’s a bit arrogant to suppose that God would give preference to this planet. To borrow from Plato, I view God as 'a rational essence, a free-floating, eternal intelligence'. I cannot envisage God as a white or coloured man, with a long white beard, up in the sky somewhere. All life on this planet had a common source and it would seem to me to be somewhat arrogant to claim that God in any way resembles or is in the form of our particular species. Personally, I do not think that God, as a cosmic intelligence, would give individual attention to any race of people let alone an individual. That is only a personal feeling. I am no more likely to be right than anyone else as I have no hot-line to heaven. Neither has the Pope nor the Chief Rabbi let alone Abu Hamza. It’s a fact, though, that my prayers often have an adverse effect. Len

I'm not nudging this to reopen the debate but there was a fascinating programme on Channel 4 on Monday night about new fundamentalists and their influnce in some schools. If you're interested but missed it look out for a repeat. http://www.channel4*com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/fund.html Replace * with . Gwynne

How do we know that the bible is real ? It could all be fairy stories for all we know.It could have been written by people who wanted laws to live by (the ten commandments ).I cannot blindly believe what I am told just because so called experts say it is so,if they can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt then I will believe. Maddy