Weather: Hi 8°C / Lo 5°C
No need to ridicule creationist beliefs
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Print
Email
Respecting other people’s views is of great importance. Mr Poots should be respected too. In actual fact he speaks the views of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
I do think he was very frank and polite with regards to biblical fundamentalism or creationism. It is very disrespectful to say “it’s all nonsense really” (Write Back, June 24).
It it suffice to say even non-Christians have not obtained satisfactory answers from evolutionists and humanists with regards to what they call “scientific proof of Earth’s beginnnings”.
Without entering the whole debate of fossil evidence, carbon dating or real science, we do agree that there is something beyond our comprehension in these matters.
Whether it’s the term created (made, born) or it’s recreated (made again, born again) there is really something supernatural about it.
We can sit and talk amicably, no need to ridicule each other!
Christian Blose
Seymour Hill, Dunmurray
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
.
Comments
100 Comments
Publications like "Nature" and "Science" are magazines, both exhibit strong magazine style journalism and commentary in addition to the published papers.
But then I guess with them not actually publishing the works of "occupational" professionals, but rather us beardy weirdies with our second rate degrees you probably wouldn't be much interested in them.
You are wrong Conor, and more than a little naive. Still an undergrad perhaps?
Posted by David | 21.07.09, 21:23 GMT
What, like the Beano?
Apologies to all concerned, Nature is a journal, not a magazine.
Posted by Will Hawkes | 21.07.09, 13:52 GMT
Will,
no I havent heard of but I have heard of Nature the JOURNAL and GQ MAGAZINE- Is it related to Nature the journal ?
Some good papers in Nature but most of the papers I'm interested in (not related to evolution etc) I get from other more specialised journals
Posted by conor | 20.07.09, 21:42 GMT
Conor,
I read it in a magazine called Nature, believe it or not. Have you heard of the said magazine? I doubt it very much.
Posted by Will Hawkes | 20.07.09, 15:06 GMT
I'd imagine it's not very good conor, from what I read in the news.
I'm not 100% sure why you're obsessed with my occupation though.
Posted by McD | 20.07.09, 13:38 GMT
One final point, specifically regarding the letter. The "debate" exists only in the minds of the fundamentalists who deny the wealth of well thought out, and considered scientific research. To state otherwise shows a deep misunderstanding of the nature of science and how it pertains to modern life.
Regardless of the tentative nature of abiogenesis research; we know a huge amount about the evolution of many organisms, more than enough to be certain that evolution was the mechanism at play and not godly creation.
Creationism is "nonsense" and incredibly easy to redicule, although I choose not to do it. Creationism like any field of thought dedicated to pure criticism of another is doomed to failure, but then perhaps the reason they don't conduct any primary research is because they know what would be found. Sceptical of science, yet unsceptical of faith is a very weak platform for knowledge.
Posted by David | 19.07.09, 18:37 GMT
Will,
you just googled him and NIH didn't you? You didn't read the relevant article properly as he is only being nominated at this stage
Were wikipedia's articles on Collins and NIH any good?
McD good one but totally unoriginal
How is the estate agent game these days?
Posted by conor | 18.07.09, 18:20 GMT
A post during working hours, conor? Did the boss take an early lunch?
Posted by McD | 17.07.09, 14:43 GMT
david,
still waiting for you to reveal the cogent points of 'Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. I '
Posted by Eamon | 17.07.09, 13:27 GMT
Conor,
In regards to Francis Collins, yes, I was aware that he has been appointed director of NIH. He believes in evolution, so, I have no problem with his appointment. He is quoted as saying, "Evolution is God's way of giving upgrades". In regards to his religious views and why evolution occurs, I think he is wrong, badly wrong, but I don't think that it will affect his work, he is too professional for that. As long as he believes in the principle of evolution he will be OK. The best of luck to him, he has an important job ahead.
Posted by Will Hawkes | 17.07.09, 12:09 GMT
Science is by it's very nature naturalistic; but then you would know that if you had passed your single award, right?
If you are going to be religious conor, at least have the balls to believe that your holy book is the word of your God. Don't try to shoe horn in later discoveries in a peacemeal fashion. Then again once you take out the supernatural stuff, the Bible just ends up being a pretty dull "account" of war and peace in the middle east.
Posted by David | 17.07.09, 11:33 GMT
Im sure that definition came from a reputable source
Did you see Francis Collins has been nominated director of NIH
Posted by conor | 17.07.09, 11:09 GMT
Conor you are 100% correct on one point, my typo's are attrocious, I am busy and therefore touch-type my comments without review, apologies.
Posted by M S | 17.07.09, 11:08 GMT
No, it's not. Theistic evolution states that evolution "is a tool God used to develop human life". Evolution by natural selection is directionless. It's also not a theory and has no supporting evidence.
Another fail for conor.
Posted by McD | 17.07.09, 09:14 GMT
McD Im not interested in intelligent design and never have been
Theistic evolution and natural selection are totally compatible
Now go and research it properly
Posted by conor | 16.07.09, 18:13 GMT
Sorry conor, "theistic evolution" and intelligent design aren't the same thing as evolution by means of natural selection.
Posted by McD | 16.07.09, 10:43 GMT
Will, I do believe in evolution..sorry to disappoint you
Posted by conor | 16.07.09, 08:18 GMT
Wow,
You really are a little bucket of hate aren't you. Most religious fundies take at least a week, to crack like that. What ever happened to that lovable christian trait of "turning the other cheek"? Does this mean you have nothing cogent left to bring to the discussion?
If you must know the seeds of atheism started in Sunday School. The ark, creation, burning bush, talking snakes. and walking on water were just too big a myth to swallow. Intellectual curiousity > bronze aged mythology.
Posted by David | 16.07.09, 07:55 GMT
MS you are gullible
I presume you became a humanist/atheist/whatever after reading the great Dawkins- brainwasher of the paperback quasi-professionals
I see from the typos that the chief of NICS was coming round when you were typing your last comment.
Posted by conor | 15.07.09, 23:04 GMT
That's a good final point there, Conor. What about this for a proposal, if one doesn't believe in the FACT of evolution, therefore Swine Flu cannot exist (it evolved from another flu virus afterall), therefore one cannot catch it because it doesn't exist and therefore one will not require life-saving anti-virals?
Is it hypocritical therefore for a creationist to ask for anti-virals? Should they let their children die in line with their beliefs? Of course they won't, they are born hypocrits.
Posted by Will Hawkes | 15.07.09, 14:52 GMT
100 Comments