Editor #fundie

Editor #fundie cseblogs.com

I wish I had a nickel for every ungrounded believer who has fallen for the spiritual deception of evolution.

Calling it science does not change what it is. And it comes from The Pit, not from scientific research. Evolutionary beliefs are completely incongruent with Biblical and scientific beliefs.

The Bible is out of sync with modern science? “4.5 billion”? Where on Earth did you hear such nonsense. Not from Scripture, which teaches 6 days, 6000 years ago. And not from science which shows that the “red shift” is quantized. Honestly. Quit following the broad path.

32 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"I wish I had a nickel for every ungrounded believer who has fallen for the spiritual deception of evolution."

Why? If that were the case you wouldn't have any nickels.

"Calling it science does not change what it is."

Similarly, calling religion sane does not change what it is.

"And it comes from The Pit, not from scientific research."

Uh huh. Sure.

"Evolutionary beliefs are completely incongruent with Biblical and scientific beliefs."

Pretty much anything backed by facts is incongruent with Biblical beliefs. Science doesn't have any beliefs since it relies on evidence rather than faith.

"The Bible is out of sync with modern science?"

Don't forget reality. It was out of sync with that when it was originally written and hasn't caught up yet.

"“4.5 billion”? Where on Earth did you hear such nonsense."

Geologists usually. Or anyone who happens to have even a first grade education.

"Not from Scripture, which teaches 6 days, 6000 years ago."

It does no such thing. Nowhere does it give a date for creation. Ussher came up with that 400 years ago or so. Quit believing what your pastor tells you and read the Bible for yourself.

"And not from science which shows that the “red shift” is quantized."

As far as I'm aware, the universe--and certainly the Earth--are not dated using red shift.

"Honestly. Quit following the broad path."

Honestly. Read a fucking book other than your Babble.

old comment by James

And "red shift" isn't quantised. The energy of the radiation is quantised as energy per photon = hf, but the frequency, f, which is what changes in "red shift" is still continuous.

Not that red shift has anything to do with dating the earth. Whilst we'd have to get technical to discuss why the age is 4.55 billion years, there have been rocks as old as 3.9 billion years old confirmed by radiometric dating. And before you get all pissy about carbon dating being untrustworthy (which is bullshit), we're talking about potassium/argon and uranium/lead dating.

Scientific beliefs are not synonomous with biblical beliefs. In fact, on a Paris Hilton scale of importance, with 1 being a top priority and 'Paris Hilton' being completely unimportant and worth no consideration whatsoever, science rates the importance of scripture as 'Nicole Richie'. So there. The scientific community doesn't care one angstrom what scripture says.

old comment by Tempus

James Ussher is responsible for the modern claim that the universe is only some 6,000 years old, through study of biblical genealogies. It is not stated in the bible.

And red shift is not quantized:

The large majority of astronomers do not accept the argument that redshifts are quantized, based on weaknesses in both observational & theoretical evidence in their favor. There are numerous published papers in support of quantized redshifts, mostly from the originator of the claim, William G. Tifft, from the University of Arizona (i.e., Global Redshift Periodicities and Periodicity Variability, Astrophysical Journal 485(2): 465-483, August 20, 1997; Global Redshift Periodicities and Periodicity Structure, Astrophysical Journal 468(2): 491-518, September 10, 1996). But most of Tifft's studies have examined relatively small numbers of galaxies, or galaxies in relatively small regions of the sky. A recent study of the very large 2dF database showed no indication of quantization or periodicity in redshifts (No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data, E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox & M.R. Merrifield, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 336(1): L13-L16, October 11, 2002). And it has been argued that Tifft's treatment of the statistics is incorrect (i.e., Redshift data and statistical inference, W.I. Newman, M.P. Haynes & y. Terzian, Astrophysical Journal 431(1): 147-155, August 1994). The debate continues in the literature, nonetheless, but the argument remains weak.

Creationist commonly assume that quantized redshifts are a proven fact, and always base their arguments on this false assumption. But, unsatisfied with only one false assumption, they proceed to accept an even worse false assumption, namely that quantized redshifts and Big Bang cosmology are incompatible. This is most certainly false.

Rest of article here.

“I wish I had a nickel for every ungrounded believer who has fallen for the spiritual deception of evolution.”
It’s science. Same sciene that makes the internet possible It’s not a spiritual deception. Nothing in Evolution says any particular god does or doesn’t exist, that there is or isn’t an afterlife, or heaven/hell/purgatory.

“Calling it science does not change what it is.”
Calling it spiritual deception ,likewise.

“And it comes from The Pit, not from scientific research. Evolutionary beliefs are completely incongruent with Biblical and scientific beliefs.”
And yet, many Christain scientists accept it… Weird.

“The Bible is out of sync with modern science?”
Scientifically speaking, the Bible is mythical nonsense. Always has been.

““4.5 billion”? Where on Earth did you hear such nonsense. Not from Scripture, which teaches 6 days, 6000 years ago.”
That would be the Biblical Literalist’s problem, though.

“And not from science which shows that the “red shift” is quantized.”
Try again, sweetie.

“Honestly. Quit following the broad path.’”
Your nay-saying noted, measured, weighed, and dismissed.

Editor #fundie cseblogs.com

32 comments

Confused?