In my world science is not equated with satanism.
However, your world is increasingly becoming overrun with extreme fringe elements who do equate science with satanism.
If you would rather keep those fringe posters, and discourage the scientists from posting here, then fringe posters is what you''ll end up with.
Go to hell troll.
Science is not Darwinism and that is what this thread is about
The only scientists that have ever posted here are all creationists.
How did Jim Robinson contradicting your statement about who should be allowed to post on your thread, discourage you from posting?
Just filter out or ignore those whom you find unworthy of responding to.
Those interested in your topic for its sake can still talk to one another.
Cheers!
I have not read the entire thread yet, but I do not think that it is appropriate that coyoteman should be banned based on what I have read so far.
Excuse me... science BEGAN as the observation of the natural world and the wonders of God’s creation, thus to gain understanding so to draw man closer to his Creator, and his eternal destiny.
Thus in keeping the above context in sight, to make the statement that “science is not equated with satanism” [sic] yet simultaneously extol the supposed virtues of a thought system whose cornerstones rest on the philosophical postulates of secular humanism, which in fact denies the existence of God, is by definition a “false” or “diabolical” mission. Here is the reasoning behind my assertion:
Diabolic:
The word “diabolic” derives from the Greek word “diaballo” meaning to “pass beyond” or “over”, from the root dia - “through” and, as a causal accusative, “with the aid of”. Later, diaballo acquired a more sense - for example “to set against” (Aristotle) although it was sometimes used (as diabolos) when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was meant, as for example, a false accusation.
Devil:
The early forms of the English word devil are regarded as deriving from the Gothic (the Old English divul) ‘diabaulus’ which came from the Latin ‘diabolus’. However, the Old English ‘deofel’ and kindred words like the Old Frisian ‘diovel’ could be derived from the suffix ‘fel’, a variant of ‘fell’ meaning fierce, savage, or wild. Then the original form, ‘deofel’, would mean the ‘fierce/ savage/ wild’ god. There is some justification for the use of the Latin prefix in this manner - e.g. ‘deodand’, which occurs in 12th century English. In this context ‘fell’ (from the Latin ‘fello’) was often used to describe both a wild, fierce person (such as an outlaw) and a brave man or warrior. Much later, the word passed into general usage as ‘felon’ - with a moral sense.
Satan:
This is often regarded as from the Hebrew, meaning accuser. However, the Hebrew is itself derived from the Greek aitia - “an accusation” - qv. Aeschylus: aitiau ekho. The Greek form became corrupted to the Hebrew ‘Satan’ - whence also ‘Shaitan’. In Greek of the classical period aitia and diabole were often used for the same thing, particularly when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was required. Hebrew is essentially in its origins a corrupt form of Greek, with some other influences thrown in.
Evil:
The word ‘evil’ derives from the Gothic ‘ubils’ which meant a ‘going beyond’ (the due measure)
To be diabolical is to be false. Hence, to connect science with a philosophical set of principles that sets as its objective a denial of the metaphysical realm science sought to explain is to “pass over and beyond” the purpose of science “with the aid of” a counter philosophy, so to cast science in a light alien to its origins. Such an endeavor would rightly be defined as “anti-science” or “counter-science” or more precisely a “false science” that asserts itself to establish a new paradigm… one that “sets against” God, and works to usurp God’s authority while simultaneously envying the power of God. Thus we have a system of thought that is wholly foreign to science but desires to subordinate science under its realm, rather than be subordinated to the original intent of science: the study of God’s creation.
This new paradigm asserts itself better, bigger, and more rational than belief in God… thus it “goes beyond” God, and therefore may accurately be called “evil” (Gothic: ‘ubils’)
The new paradigm asserts that man descended – “evolved” - from wild beasts Thus it is “devilish” in its philosophy, and false in its principles (Greek: ‘aitia’ and ‘diabole’).
(How is it possible to hold that man may simultaneously descend from, i.e.: move downward, and yet “evolve” or move upward?)
So, in fact this new paradigm is false… but for reason of envy of God’s power of creation it is more than false… it is a lie, for all lies derive from pride and envy. This new paradigm asserts that man descended from wild beasts, and so its philosophy may accurately be described as “devilish.” This new paradigm “accuses” all religion as being the bane of humanity, and so it may accurately be described as satanic (Greek ‘aitia’). Since this new paradigm:
1. Is an unfaithful or “false” copy of the original (diabolic)
2. Declares that order comes from disorder without intervention of intelligence (evil)
3. Declares man evolved from beast (devilish)
4. Accuses all religions to be the bane of humanity. God does not exist (satanic)
5. Asserts the above, having envy its motive, and thus is based in false pride, not science (diabolic)
So, your original statement “science is not equated with satanism” … needs a slight modification: ‘true science is not equated with Satanism’ … whereas that which presently poses as “science” does indeed derive from the diabolical, is devilish in philosophy, is evil in its nature, is a lie, and satanic in its objectives.
By a trial of the objective facts the accused is guilty. The prosecution rests its case.