Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Claire » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:13 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:22 am
Claire wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:00 am
How did I misquote you?
Here:
SEG wrote:You believe the earth is only 10,000 years old?
That was HG, not moi.
Oh okay. Thank you.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:44 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:18 pm
SEG wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:52 am
Yes, I would accept your evidence if you had scientific proof. I would probably convert and pledge my allegiance to a superior being if the evidence was overwhelming - who wouldn't?
Really? Ok, here is scientific evidence that the Bible is correct from Dr. Andrew A. Snelling who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney.
ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22)
Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
4) Moon moving away from Earth

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11)
Scientific evidence of a recent creation:
1) DNA programming for irreducibly complex protein sequences
2) Lack of missing links in the fossil record
3) Dinosaur blood vessels in fossils

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.
Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
“Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field
When should we schedule your baptism?
Hahahar! Nice try Chappy! In ten seconds of Googling his name, I got this: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
Will the Real Dr Snelling Please
Stand Up?
Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

(a) Dr A A Snelling 1 - creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

(b) Dr A A Snelling 2 - consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.

Snelling 1
For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

"(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

(D) GENERAL

The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal - except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

"On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

"However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

"It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

"It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

"What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).
I live in Sydney and look out for this sort of buffoonery, but I have never seen it before now. Thanks for the reference, I will keep it up my sleeve to use against other misinformed dolts.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:34 am

It is obvious what you have presented is nothing but a hit piece on Dr. Snelling. Below is his response to the besmirching from the website https://trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.php
I have never hidden my allegiances or beliefs. For example, when I left the employment of mining companies in 1983 I made it perfectly clear where I was going, what I believed and what I was doing. I also told other research scientists that I was working with, and even offered to be a silent partner in the research work if my involvement embarrassed them or compromised them in any way. None of them in any way backed off, respecting me and the position I'd taken even if they didn't agree.
When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting. It so happens that the editor of the volume when he did the work was still in the employ of one of the mining companies that I had worked for that knew my position, so nothing was hidden from the public in any way.

The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not. In other words, even though I could have appealed to the editor of the monograph it would have been to no avail, because the reviewers would have also insisted on the conventional terminology, particularly as one of the reviewers was one of the researchers having done the standard work on the regional geology of that area. It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy or two-facedness. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don't agree with the millions of years associated with them. In other words, even in the creationist literature we use the same terminology, though stripped on its conventionaal evolutionary/uniformitaria interpretation.

I believe that specific responses to the article by Alex Ritchie and similar claims by Ian Plimer are available on the Answers in Genesis website, the address for which is:

Please don't misunderstand me, but I have long ago given up trying to defend myself against these kinds of accusations, not through any arrogance or lack of submission to accountability on my part, but simply because it is a great waste of time that distracts me from what the Lord has called me to do. Besides, these people will not be convinced and they are really out for my destruction. The parallel in the Scriptures is with Nehemiah. His enemies tried all sorts of tricks to distract him from doing the work of rebuilding the walls, but their only intention was to kill him and make sure the walls were not rebuilt. I am in no way saying that I am any equal to Nehemiah, but I am resolute in being available to the Lord to do His bidding as He directs, whatever the consequences, and even if we don't appear successful in the world's eyes. The Lord calls us to be faithful - the success is up to Him as He sees fit so that He gets all the glory.
By the way, let me dispell the myth that somehow I make a lot of money out of any of this. Quite the opposite. As far as the consulting work is concerned there has been very little of it, probably averaging around 1 week to 10 days per year at most over the last 15 years. The bulk of livelihood I need to support my family comes from working with the Creation Science Foundation/Answers in Genesis, and the remuneration here, understandably, has been, and is, less than one-third or one-quarter of what I could receive in the mining industry, about the one-third or one-half what I would receive in an academic post, or about one-tenth of what I would receive in consulting. Mind you, I am not complaining one bit, as the Lord has been good to us in so many ways nonetheless.

Andrew Snelling
Now, I have provided scientific evidence from a legitimate scientist. So again I ask, when do you want to schedule your baptism?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:45 am

Chapabel wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:34 am

Now, I have provided scientific evidence from a legitimate scientist. So again I ask, when do you want to schedule your baptism?
I found this part of the article intriguing:
I believe that specific responses to the article by Alex Ritchie and similar claims by Ian Plimer are available on the Answers in Genesis website, the address for which is:
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:06 am

The Creationist Suing Grand Canyon Park Officials for Discrimination Is Just a Bad Scientist
I wonder how your "scientist" went in his lawsuit for discrimination?
The Creationist Suing Grand Canyon Park Officials for Discrimination Is Just a Bad Scientist
MAY 10, 2017 BY HEMANT MEHTA

Yesterday, Answers in Genesis announced that one of their Creationist geologists, Dr. Andrew Snelling, had filed a lawsuit against Grand Canyon National Park after he was “denied a permit to remove rock samples from the Grand Canyon… due to his religious beliefs.” Snelling (below) is represented by right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

SnellingTalk
Dr. Snelling commented, “This case is all about giving the freedom for a scientist to do good science without having to undergo a religious litmus test. The samples I have been blocked from collecting in the GCNP are to be subjected to routine lab processing and investigations any good scientist would perform. The results are to be openly reported for all scientists to draw their own conclusions, whether they agree with my worldview interpretation of the history of the Earth.”

Regarding the park’s censorship, Dr. Snelling added: “We expect debate about what the evidence means, but the park shouldn’t prevent us from collecting data just like other scientists. I am merely asking for equal treatment by the government.”

On the surface, this raises an interesting question, and it’s the one Answers in Genesis wants people to ask: If a Creationist wants to conduct scientific research, should the government get in his way? It’s very tempting to respond with, “Of course not!”

But the reality is that Snelling isn’t conducting legitimate scientific research. It’s worth going through his personal history and what this lawsuit is all about to understand that.

First, a little background on Snelling. He earned a doctorate in geology from the University of Sydney in 1982, and published peer-reviewed research in mainstream publications for much of the next decade. All that seems well and good.

Here’s what’s weird: In those same years, he was publishing articles in Creationist publications in which he tossed aside any mention of rocks being “millions of years” old.

So what does he really believe?

Paleontologist Dr. Alex Ritchie wrote about this discrepancy in a 1991 issue of The Skeptic, referring to the man as Snelling 1 (the Creationist) and Snelling 2 (the real scientist). He wondered: which one was the real Dr. Snelling?

Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.

Why would someone have these two identities? Presumably because Snelling 2 gets all the prestige and credibility of being a published scientist… and Snelling 1 can then use that cachet to boost his own reputation. (The world is 6,000 years old, and I know what I’m talking about because I’m a peer-reviewed Ph.D. in the field!)

It also means Snelling was lying every time he wrote articles referencing time spans longer than a few thousand years. (It wouldn’t be the first time a Creationist felt he had to play the game, so to speak, to earn the respect of mainstream scientists.)

So that’s Snelling.

Now why is he suing?

Both Answers in Genesis and Alliance Defending Freedom only published the lawsuit itself on their website…

“Scientists will always look at data and challenge one another’s interpretations of the information,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Such disagreement is how science works. But when the government starts refusing access to even collect the information because it dislikes one scientist’s views, it undercuts science and violates the law. And this case perfectly illustrates why President Trump had to order executive agencies to affirm religious freedom, because Park officials specifically targeted Dr. Snelling’s religious faith as the reason to stop his research.” ADF Allied Attorney Michael Kitchen added, “The government isn’t allowed to discriminate against someone based on their viewpoint, and National Park officials have absolutely no legal justification in stopping a scientist from conducting research simply because they don’t agree with his views. Using someone’s views to screen them for a government benefit is unconstitutional.”

… Neither group, however, included the packet of exhibits in their press releases. I had to go hunting for that. And what you find in those exhibits is not discrimination against Snelling for being a Creationist.

What you find are credible scientists saying Snelling’s research proposal was so god-awful, that he shouldn’t be granted a permit and be allowed to waste the taxpayers’ time and resources.

Without getting into the details of his proposal — because the specifics are certainly over my head — Snelling wanted to do research in the Grand Canyon in 2013 and filed an application for permission. Part of that process includes getting your peers to review the proposal and essentially write a letter of recommendation. They have to say it’s relevant research with a good plan of attack.

Snelling responded with “three peer reviews of this project, each of which rated the project highly and commended it for approval.”
What the lawsuit doesn’t mention is that those three peer reviews came from Timothy Clarey (who works for the Institute for Creation Research), John Whitmore (who got his masters from ICR and now teaches at anti-evolution Cedarville University), and Raymond Strom (who has also worked with ICR).

In short, the only peer reviewers Snelling had on his side were his Creationist buddies. That’s like Donald Trump saying he hasn’t violated any ethics rules because his Cabinet and advisers can all vouch for him.

Snelling submitted all that documentation to Ronda Newton, the Research Permitting Coordinator for Grand Canyon National Park, and she must have had doubts about his proposal, because she asked University of New Mexico professor Dr. Karl Karlstrom for his thoughts on those peer reviewers.

Karlstrom wrote back (via email):

All these people represent the agressive [sic] approach of the Creation Science Institute — they put forward semi-reputable scientists who try to cast doubt on science. In these type of proposals, you have a hard job. They will cast them as reasonable by limiting the scope to the data and not mentioning conclusions or interpretations. Some of them have credentials of a sorts, but they use the “results” to bolster their avowed creationist agenda. Their web trails can be tricky and, for Whitmore, I could dig deeper to learn more about whether there is real science in there somewhere…

In a formal response, Karlstrom went into more detail about why the actual science behind Snelling’s proposal made little sense and was factually inaccurate. Snelling didn’t understand the topic he wanted to do research in, Karlstrom argued in great detail, before summarizing it like this:

My overall conclusion is that Dr. Snelling has no scientific track record and no scientific affiliation since 1982. I do not see this proposal as a scientifically valid research proposal. It is not well formulated based on current knowledge of Grand Canyon geology, the nature of microstructures of soft sediment structures in general, nor of the microstructures and mode of formation of monoclines. The proposed work does not seem to me to be of the scientific standard required for a Park research permit, and in any case, would not need to be done in Grand Canyon.

Damn… that’s a well-deserved slap in the face.

Newton then asked Dr. Peter Huntoon of the University of Wyoming for feedback on Snelling’s proposal — in part because his research was cited by Snelling. If anyone knew whether Snelling’s proposed research had any merit, it was Huntoon.

Huntoon’s response was even harsher.

Over the decades, individuals like Mr. Snelling have earned advanced degrees thus allowing them to be able to lay claim to being able to present themselves as scientists. The proposals forthcoming from them have become increasingly more sophisticated so that to the unwary they almost sound like science and they purport to use traditional scientific methodologies to carry out their work. But like the one at hand, the outcomes are clearly foregone. They then publish articles in their own growing body of literature. Thus the beat goes on. The objective is to create doubt, not among scientists, but among the public whom they hope to sway to their belief systems. The approach is a classic “merchants of doubt” ploy that we witness continually and which perpetually creates noise and distraction throughout public discourse on everything from the health risks of smoking to the validity of global warming.

I am a bit annoyed at that [sic] the U.S. National Park Service would send yet another of these proposals for me to wade through. In the past they came from the Grand Canyon National History Association. Your internal screening processes should include an examination of the credentials of the submitters so that those who represent inappropriate interests should be screened out.

It’s fair to say Huntoon didn’t address the “science” in Snelling’s proposal, but he wasn’t criticizing Snelling for being a Christian. His argument was that this wasn’t a legitimate proposal to begin with because Snelling wasn’t a credible researcher. That made his entire endeavor meaningless.

After Newton apologized to Huntoon for “the inconvenience this caused” him, he responded that “Reviewing is fine, just not processing the dead end creationist material.”

One other peer reviewer, Ron Blakey, said, “It is difficult to review such an outlandish proposal. The author seems to have a total lack of understanding of the topic. I’m not sure what else to say about this.”

You get the idea here. Snelling hasn’t produced any credible, peer-reviewed research in decades. His affiliations are suspect because they don’t advance science while actively spreading misinformation. His proposal showed his own ignorance of the topic. And the people who were supposed to vouch for him had their own obvious biases.

No wonder the proposal was rejected.

It was like a fifth grader writing a college admissions essay; when it’s so obviously juvenile, rejecting it is the only sensible thing to do.

That’s not discrimination; it’s what we expect from the permit granting process. If bouncers let everyone through, we wouldn’t need them.

But we all know how conservative Christian groups handle these matters. They can never admit they don’t have merit to their case. It’s always about persecution, and this is no different.

Let’s hope a judge realizes that.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:47 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:06 am
The Creationist Suing Grand Canyon Park Officials for Discrimination Is Just a Bad Scientist
I wonder how your "scientist" went in his lawsuit for discrimination?
He won. Actually he dropped the lawsuit because he was granted permission to gather his samples. This case is simply another example of the bias held against anyone who identifies as a Christian in the field of science. Here’s the article from: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/ ... er-lawsuit
Update: Andrew Snelling will get his permit to collect rocks in Grand Canyon, Scott Wartman of Cincinnati.com reported yesterday. Snelling dropped his lawsuit after the National Park Service offered to have "experienced staff" help "pinpoint locations and determine appropriate sampling methodology." In a statement, Snelling said he was "gratified that the Grand Canyon research staff have recognized the quality and integrity of my proposed research project and issued the desired research permits so that I can collect rock samples in the park, perform the planned testing of them, and openly report the results for the benefit of all."
Are you free next Sunday for your baptism?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:46 pm

Well that sucked. They tried to stop his junk science research because it was a waste of public money and resources. Did you read that article I posted in full? He has adopted an identity of a credible scientist in order to get some credibility for his real agenda, a bible thumping Looney!
Why would someone have these two identities? Presumably because Snelling 2 gets all the prestige and credibility of being a published scientist… and Snelling 1 can then use that cachet to boost his own reputation. (The world is 6,000 years old, and I know what I’m talking about because I’m a peer-reviewed Ph.D. in the field!)

It also means Snelling was lying every time he wrote articles referencing time spans longer than a few thousand years.
Lying for Jeebus, wot a guy! But let's not persecute someone that is frittering away research dollars for make-believe fairy storyies! I hope you are basking in that sort of justice.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Chapabel » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:02 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:46 pm
Well that sucked. They tried to stop his junk science research because it was a waste of public money and resources.
Now, you said that you would convert if I could provide scientific evidence that validated the Bible. I have done so but you do not seem inclined to convert. Here’s the rub — due to your personal beliefs you refuse to accept the evidence I presented. You label it junk science and stand your ground. That makes us very similar. I too reject junk science and trust in the evidence that supports the Bible. You need to understand that evidence is subject to interpretation. You and I could examine the exact same evidence and draw very different conclusions. So you can continue to post your evidence that contradicts Biblical evidence but it will not change the beliefs of those who have met the Living God. All you’re doing is trying to reinforce your own personal bias.

Claire
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by Claire » Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:37 am

Chapabel wrote:Ok, here is scientific evidence that the Bible is correct from Dr. Andrew A. Snelling who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney.
ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22)
Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
4) Moon moving away from Earth

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11)
Scientific evidence of a recent creation:
1) DNA programming for irreducibly complex protein sequences
2) Lack of missing links in the fossil record
3) Dinosaur blood vessels in fossils

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.
Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
“Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field
Such crap. And, here's a few reasons why;

Let's start with missing links, well multiple "missing links" have been found. They're not missing anymore i.e, Homo Erectus, Habilis, Australopithecus, and even the Denisovan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICv6GLwt1gM

Also, he leaves out that Geologists still believe in sedimentary forces and catastrophic, and those catastrophes were millions to billions of years ago...

We've had multiple major extinction events.

As for blood circulation, freaking Galen knew that. And, he made people believe in the 4 humours for centuries! Lol.

His entire post is just an army of strawmen!

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Some Christians Need to Lie

Post by SEG » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:57 am

Claire wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:37 am
Chapabel wrote:Ok, here is scientific evidence that the Bible is correct from Dr. Andrew A. Snelling who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney.
ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22)
Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
4) Moon moving away from Earth

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11)
Scientific evidence of a recent creation:
1) DNA programming for irreducibly complex protein sequences
2) Lack of missing links in the fossil record
3) Dinosaur blood vessels in fossils

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.
Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
“Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field
Such crap. And, here's a few reasons why;

Let's start with missing links, well multiple "missing links" have been found. They're not missing anymore i.e, Homo Erectus, Habilis, Australopithecus, and even the Denisovan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICv6GLwt1gM

Also, he leaves out that Geologists still believe in sedimentary forces and catastrophic, and those catastrophes were millions to billions of years ago...

We've had multiple major extinction events.

As for blood circulation, freaking Galen knew that. And, he made people believe in the 4 humours for centuries! Lol.

His entire post is just an army of strawmen!
Here's a rebut of just some of the junk science these guys spew;
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evide ... e_universe
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply