Who Is Banning Books Now?

Hal Lindsey Oracle ^ | 2/2/04 | Hal Lindsey

[RadioAstronomer]

Off for the day (the stars are calling)!

[RadioAstronomer]

Balderdash, flummadiddle, poppycock, tommyrot. Jabberwocky too.

LOL! Will need to add them to my list! :-)

Will be back on this evening.

[old-ager]

> common sense

Plain chemicals becoming alive due only to addition of energy, and animals turning into humans, and that observable short term devolution turns into evolution if you do it long enough -- common sense?

Oh, are you going to tell me that I'm not up to date on evolutionary "FACTS" -- that no credible evolutionist now says that plain chemicals can be stimulated into life by adding energy or that animals turn into humans? Please do so!

[DoctorMichael]

Ignorant, snakehanders Bump.

[DannyTN]

"Is every "idea" these days considered a scientific theory? "

No, but this book was written by 24 PHD's who all came to the same conclusion after making scientific observations through different fields of study.

"Do you know what the definition is of a scientific theory?

The definition varies some. Evolutionists like to throw out definitions of "science" that limit it to the study of natural phenomena because they think that thereby they can stop all discussion of intelligent design, because they define "natural" as excluding intelligent design.

The definitions I use are:

• Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.
• Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Based on my definitions, the scientific essays presented in the book are indeed scientific theories. Based on your definition, it ain't science if it's intelligent design no matter what the evidence says.

[newcats]

And while he hasn't been perfect, he has a pretty good track record.

3 out of hundreds...perhaps thousands of predictions is a pretty good track record eh?
Remind me never to have you do my taxes. :)

[old-ager]

> Species are human constructs

This is an extreme view; it's a philosophical belief on your part. But if there's no such thing as a species, of course you are already home free, aren't you? You don't need to prove that apes turn into humans, since they are already members of the same big mushy mess of non-species. Sure. All you are doing is deconstructing a valid and useful concept and fact (species). Just as Einstein did not invalidate Newtonian physics, but added to it at the (important) margin, complexities about what species really are do not invalidate the basic concept.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Non-responsive. Absent your definition of species, your definition of micro evolution has no meaning.

[old-ager]

> your definition of species

The classical definition is still very instructive, and it's what most people understand. Are animals turning into humans?

[GSWarrior]

To allow that kind of unscientific discrimination, allows the appearance of the park service endorsing one scientific explanation over the others.

I don't know. If I went into the Yosemite gift shop and saw a religious book section and a natural history section it wouldn't even enter my mind that the Park Service is discriminating or endorsing one view over another. I suppose if one looked hard enough one could find religious discrimination everywhere.

I don't have a problem having a religious section, but I wouldn't have a problem if the selections were all together, either. Both sides are overreacting, IMO.

Playing this out all the way is likely to result in no books being sold at national parks.

[DannyTN]

"3 out of hundreds...perhaps thousands of predictions is a pretty good track record eh?"

Really??? You have a list? I've read most of Lindsey's books. He doesn't make that many predictions. I bet he hasn't made a hundred predictions in his life. I've seen a list of the predictions that came true and it's a lot more than three.

And the prediction Hal gets the most grief over, the prediction that Jesus would likely return within 40 years of Israel becoming a nation again, he had about 5 "if's" qualifying the prediction when he made it. In other words he originally said, "If this, if that, if this, if that, if this, then this might happen." And what do you know, he was wrong!

What a liar Hal is! /Sarcasm off

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof!

[Dimensio]

... serious evidence that there _is_ a major problem with circular reasoning -- and no proof that the problem has been dealt with.

Except for that whole explanation as to why itns' not circular reasoning. But I suppose that doesn't count, since it doesn't support your agenda, so you didn't bother to explain why the reasoning is invalid.

Just hundreds or thousands of words that hardly anybody will read.

Well of course you won't read them. You wouldn't want to risk learning something that challenges your obviously fragile worldview. No, better to shun reasoning and ignore explanations, then pretend that they don't exist so that you're not a liar when you claim that no evidence for the opposing view has ever been found.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Non responsive. Creationists seem to like to do a little tapdance sidestep and never answer a question.

What is your definiton of a species? Why? Is "species" a property belonging to an entity?

[DannyTN]

"If I went into the Yosemite gift shop and saw a religious book section and a natural history section it wouldn't even enter my mind that the Park Service is discriminating or endorsing one view over another. "

That's exactly right. You would assume that the one and only theory the Park Service presents in it's science section is the one and only scientific theory.

You would probably not bother to buy and read the book in the religious section where you would discover that there are valid scientific arguments for a different view.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Yet you have no problem using the fruits of science, such as computers, the internet, microwave ovens, tvs, vaccines etc.

You might want to add that the theory of evolution did not lead to such things as you list above. There is a difference between the laws of Physics being used to create things and the educated guesses of evolution which change so much that who knows how anything got started.

Evolution exists so that people who don't want to believe or seek God can be intellectually fulfilled.

[old-ager]

> religious book section

I imagine there's been plenty of Native American religion in these bookshops for a long time. The reason that's ok with most people is that they still perceive Christianity as being dominant in this country, therefore able to withstand deprecation. Also, many consider Christianity as something that puts them down and limits their freedom. The combination of perceptions causes folks to not mind or even be happy when Christianity is put down.

[rustbucket]

I have a different interpretation of your bottom picture. I suspect that the shape of the canyon depends more on the properties of the formation being eroded than the speed of the flow, though the speed of flow will probably have some effect.

What I think the last photo shows are alternate sequences of sandstone and shale. This particular sandstone is hard and tends to result in vertical walls. The shales are soft. They result in the sloped sides of the canyon.

This area would appear to be an old ocean margin. When the sea level rose, fine sediments were deposited, i.e., the clay-rich or silt-rich shales. When the sea level fell, the shore was exposed. Beach sand later turned into sandstone during subsequent burial.

The bottom photo shows at least two complete sea level cycles, where the sea level fell, then rose again. That's the sequence stratigraphy theory anyway, as I understand it. However, I'm no geologist. If I've got my geology wrong, someone will no doubt correct me.

[GSWarrior]

You would assume that the one and only theory the Park Service presents in it's science section is the one and only scientific theory.

Not me, personally, but some might, I suppose.

I would not look to the Park Service for an opinion on this subject nor would I expect them to have one. I would be out climbing a precipice or exploring a crevice, not fretting about how the books are displayed. But, that's just me.

[MississippiMan]

It was some 24 PHD's who wrote the book. The current evolution establishment is not debunking this on it's merits, they are simply trying to get it banned because it contradicts the established view.

You are of course right, Danny, but you may as well save your fingers and your mind from trying to get the evolutionists here to see the obvious, common-sense reality in play. Evolution cannot withstand genuine scientific debate, so its proponents instead rely on attacks and laughter to discredit the messengers. Some will throw a page of links at you to support their side, but it's all the same regurgitated bunch of circular reasoning and wild assumptions that would be laughed at in any other scientific discipline.

It's ironic that you see the behavior across all political persuasions, when you consider how virtually every person here also decries the exact same practice from liberals who forbid any real discussion of certain issues. For example, when's the last time you heard a real discussion on racial issues? You don't. Anyone who attempts to start an honest dialog is immediately shouted down by the opposition, laughed at, trivialized, scorned, labeled a bigot. This is a common methodology when their side of an issue is dogmatically adhered to and can't withstand the light of reason.

Fact is, these people have bought wholly into the "wisdom" of a few men, accepting it as incontrovertible truth, over the Word of God, even though the Word makes infinitely more sense. They're blinded by Satan; they're the classic scoffers the Bible warned about when God dictated it a couple thousand years ago. Here's a passage from 2 Peter (NLT). See if it seems relevant:

First, I want to remind you that in the last days there will be scoffers who will laugh at the truth and do every evil thing they desire.

This will be their argument: "Jesus promised to come back, did he? Then where is he? Why, as far back as anyone can remember, everything has remained exactly the same since the world was first created."

They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water. Then he used the water to destroy the world with a mighty flood.

Quite prescient, eh? Of course, The Bible always is. I've given up any attempt to discuss this issue with the other side. I should pray more for them, though. Satan's hold is so strong now that it blinds even Christians and causes them to do the work of the enemy, discrediting the Bible, trying to force it to conform to the "wisdom" of flawed men, instead of accepting what God has to say on the issue. Pray for them, and remember: Just as you and I will, every single scoffer here and everywhere, will kneel before Jesus Christ and give an accounting.

MM