Not dinged down yet?

A fantastic resource. Somebody hit me with "Evolution doesn't increase genetic information" w few weeks ago but I couldn't answer the question becuase they wouldn't explain to me what they meant. Now I know.

Yeah, this is lucid

Those of us who are tired of seeing rapid recycling in action... should probably begin to point folks to this index rather than playing whack-a-mole like a modern Sisyphus.

re: #4 FinnAgain

Candidate for rotating title:

playing whack-a-mole like a modern Sisyphus.

Thank you Charles!

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

That's a pretty comprehensive list. There's even a lot of stuff I haven't seen before. Somebody put a lot of work into that.

re: #8 canerican

Just wait for the Pat Condell thread.
/

Ooooooo! This, found on the side bar inside Charles' link, sounds quite interesting! :)

Other Links:

CreationWiki rebuttal

A Wiki is being assembled to respond to this Index from a Young-earth perspective.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

29 posts in over a year.

Since when has being anti-idiots meant less conservative?

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

re: #8 canerican

Hmm. You have to believe in Creationism in order to be conservative? That's about as illogical as playing whak-a-mole with a big boulder. Conservatism is about politics, not science. Science does not have a political point of view.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Since when does "Conservative" mean sticking your head in the sand? I don't get that.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

Had to ding you down because of the ad hominem. The thing is, most Holocaust Deniers are vehemently anti-semetic and seek any evidence to prove that their position is justified. Creationists and ID proponents for the most part are just arguing their faith. That they believe in the absence of evidence is not my problem with them, it's that they argue against something as backed by evidence as macro and micro evolution and come off as both ignorant and illogical. They are NOT evil bastards committing blood libel.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

I believe the reasons that the debate rages on is that there are some literal Genisis reationists.
There is another group of faith based people, who believe that their beliefs are under attack.
There are a great many Lizards though that accept the scientific evidence of Evolution, and see no conflict with their faith

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm saying this site becomes less about Conservatism (less Conservative) and more about Charles trying to disprove creationists.

And its comments like yours (calling creationists idiots) that drive people like me who just don't see the point in arguing evolution on the internet.

For me this isn't about convincing anyone anything. I just used to love this blog and read it first thing when I got up and then got home from work, now half the time I just here Charles tell me how much of an idiot I am.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

That is one of the most offensive things I have ever read.

You are a pig.

"Charles, why do you hate Christians so much?" (etc. etc.)

(Might as well just get that post out of the way right now)

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday.
"In implementation of the Geneva Conventions... the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers," the Mehr news agency quoted General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh as saying.

This is proof that there is no evolution, and also that any design was not intelligent.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers

I think that's stretching it, really.

now which would i rather do go to a gay pride parade of go on a I.D. thread

i vote for the gay pride parade which was at least funny. only could take a hour of it though

Alarms are sounding. Young earth creationists are running to their computers.

Life sucks and then you die.

re: #20 Charles

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

I guess it wasnt throbbing enough to attract attention.

back to the errors thread

re: #21 kansas

Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts

Hey, knock yourselves out, boys.

re: #28 Occasional Reader

Hey, knock yourselves out, boys.

Man they take themselves seriously. If they have war with the U.S we win, they lose.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

Okay, I've just overreacted. I'll take a break from the computer now. Maybe I'll throw some cold water on my face while I'm at it.

If I misunderstood #7, please let me know, and I will gladly apologize later.

But equating Christians who believe in creationism (not the head honchos who promote ID as a political movement to push religion) with holocaust deniers is a gross insult.

re: #31 angst

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

True Dat!

re: #23 yochanan

now which would i rather do go to a gay pride parade of go on a I.D. thread

i vote for the gay pride parade which was at least funny. only could take a hour of it though

I just surfed by CNN who had two gay guys on who just got married. The anchor was positively beside herself over their tuxedos. Puke. Monday morning I gotta decide if I've taken enough of a financial beating in my meager IRA. Would have had more if I would have put it under mattress. Big scam it is. That and $4 for gas. But I really care about two dipshits who want to bugger each other.

re: #9 Killgore Trout
Look carefully. While there is a lot of good information, some of refutations are paper thin. The "ark-and-eight-mouths" chinese language post raises more questions than it answers; If the characters in question are similar in shape, are the sounds similar, also, etc.....Although every known claim seems to be answered, some of those answers seem really incomplete, or even lame. The thing that is left out is, that the claims themselves are often irrelevant, which raises the issue as to why they even need to be refuted. This will degenerate into another
pie-fight

re: #11 Ma Sands

I gave it a look...frightening stuff:
"On the subject of morality, it is important to remember that there are two types of evolutionists:

Those who believe in morals - some atheists and all theists
Those who believe there is no such thing as morality (right and wrong) - some atheists "

Some people can write, some people are stupid and can't.

Maybe I'm biased though.

re: #30 opnion

Man they take themselves seriously. If they have war with the U.S we win, they lose.

Well, all those graves would be available for someone, anyway.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

Creationist doesn't == conservative

Look up Reconstructionism and tell me they value the constitution.

re: #31 angst

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

A well argued and defend debate based on facts is a great thing. When the other sides arguement boils down "because we say so" with no facts or evidence to back it up, its just tedious and annoying.

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A well argued and defend debate based on facts is a great thing. When the other sides arguement boils down "because we say so" with no facts or evidence to back it up, its just tedious and annoying.

Right. Then it's time to walk away. But I don't think ending discussion before it begins is the answer.

re: #35 swamprat

That was one that I hadn't heard before....

1. The Chinese character for boat (chuan 2) consists of the boat radical on the left and a phonetic element on the right. The phonetic element has two parts. The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight." The lower part is the pictograph for "mouth." However, these two elements have only phonetic significance (Wright 1996; Wright n.d.).

2. The "vessel" on the left side of the glyph is a pictograph of a dugout canoe, nothing like an ark.

3. According to the Bible, Noah's ark carried very many more than eight mouths.

4. No flood myths from China include an ark with eight passengers.

Seems pretty complete to me.

re: #40 taxfreekiller
Why oh why are Campeon & Ramos still in jail?
It really is an outrage!

The post by canerican sure sounds right.

Why the heck is Charles posting this type of crap which is SURE to piss off a large majority of his readers? Is there a ghost poster? Has someone from D-KOS hacked into Charles' system and is posting as him? Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Put another way, there are many many Christians who see Evolution as God's Toolkit for Creation.

Science tells us the What, Where, When and How of how the Universe works. The Bible tells us the Who and Why. It is up to each person to decide which of those sets of questions is more important to him or her. No matter WHICH of those sets of questions you prefer, it is important to remember that science does not disprove the existence of God, it merely shows us how wonderfully complex His Creation is, and helps explain it's inner workings to us.

re: #41 angst

For one thing, you might win over some people. Like it or not, ID people are citizens just like everyone else and they have pull on their local school boards. If nothing else, you learn their arguments and are in a better position to refute them.

Border Patrol officers Ramos and Compean are in jail.

Mexican army thugs are in AZ dressed up in Phoenix police get up
shooting up drug dealers homes with auto weapons

THIS SUBJECT I CARE ABOUT I.D. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER MUCH LESS SO EVEN NOT AT ALL

[Link: www.freedominion.com.pa...]

Alberta Human Rights Commission advises church to get folks to sign consent forms before giving a lecture. They also said the curriculum will be reviewed by state authorities.

/ducks

re: #44 wearyman

Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

Not this crap again.

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive.

Charles had said the same thing himself many times.
Now stop being a dick.

Why is it that thew biggest complainers about the way Charles runs his site have only a handful of posts?

re: #34 kansas
Somewhere, a 'log cabin Republican' weeps at your lack of political correctness.

re: #44 wearyman

Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe.

Who here is saying God did not create the Universe? I believe 100% God created the Universe, and that he did so several billions years ago, using processes which we can observe and measure.

re: #20 Charles

Charles, please forgive me if I am out of line but I find this whole creationist vs evolutionist thing to be a distraction of the problems facing the world today. I was a lurker here long before I became a poster. I read this site daily and used it as my news source. I recommend this site to everyone that I know. Lately, I have sensed that this site has become focused on a single topic that causes dissension rather than a unity of purpose. I recognize that this is your sandbox and you may do with it as you wish but I long for the days when current news items were the focal point. JMHO and take it for what is worth.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Why is it that thew biggest complainers about the way Charles runs his site have only a handful of posts?

It reminds me of my non-cooking spouse who comes in the kitchen and complains about how I organize everything.

re: #13 Phocid

Hmm. You have to believe in Creationism in order to be conservative? That's about as illogical as playing whak-a-mole with a big boulder. Conservatism is about politics, not science. Science does not have a political point of view.

There are some that believe that having faith in a Judeo-Christian creator is the one and only requirement for conservatism.

I have relatives who think like that. They consider themselves to be staunch conservatives by virtue of their faith alone, but on the issues they are very much in line with leftist, progsoc thinking. Pro-Nanny State, very much anti-second amendment, and very much in favor of higher taxes for those who have more simply because they have more.

But don't you dare tell them their views are not conservative, they won't hear any of it.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

there are many people with lots of posts who are also tired of seeing all of this "ID is bullshit" stuff @ LGF, but they have been here long enough to know that it is, of course, charles' blog and he can print whatever he wants to.

re: #40 taxfreekiller

Facts Count.

This ID vs science vs the bible vs the Creation deal vs the Darwin deal is so unimportant at this time.

The Democrats and Republicans are selling us out as we debate this worthless ass shit.
[...]
America get your head out of your ass.
[...]

Wholeheartedly concur. Like others debating how the planet will be a ball of fire 2B yrs from now, while the price of gas is hamstringing economies (and real people's lives) all around the world.

re: #44 wearyman

[...]
In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Put another way, there are many many Christians who see Evolution as God's Toolkit for Creation.
[...]

I'm with you on this, wearyman. There's plenty of time to have this discussion in homes and at the office water cooler, but not when the American Experiment is at risk of becoming the American Failure.

Let's get to work making sure the Country survives this election cycle.

Let me preface this by saying I believe in evolution, and don't for a second doubt its existence. However, I feel the need to speak up here since Charles has made continuous, almost daily posts regarding this. He labels people who want to address the problems with evolution as "anti-evolution", or creationist. As a perfect example, the documentary he railed against, "Expelled", never once said that evolution is impossible or that it isn't real. It merely said there were problems with it and it's hard to believe that evolution alone is responsible for our creation.

You can believe in God and evolution at the same time. And I don't think these so called "anti evolution" folks are labeled properly. Look there may be legit reasons for not allowing the introduction of "ID" into classrooms. However if I understand the recent legislation in LA correctly, it doesn't allow for the teaching of ID in the classroom, but merely wants to bring up the fact that the theory of evolution has many holes in it.

Science and religion don't contradict each other, they complement each other. One explains the "How" and the other explains the "Why"

Science doesn't answer the "Why"

PS - I'm not even religious, so don't respond to this post and call me a creationist religious nut, or an anti-evolution fool

-Nadav

re: #42 Killgore Trout
Ark is not a dugout canoe? Interesting coincidence, all the same. What would an "ark" pictograph look like? Just how close do you have to get to get a "hit"?

these two elements have only phonetic significance

.....If they only have "phonetic significance, then why are the sounds represented by boat/mouths pictures? Not that there aren't more likely explanations, but this could go a bit deeper. and the fact that they don't go into full detail probably only means that they don't consider it worth the effort because they find it to be far fetched. But they could have "gone the extra mile".

re: #17 Canerican

I just used to love this blog and read it first thing when I got up and then got home from work, now half the time I just here Charles tell me how much of an idiot I am.

I must of missed the blog Charles posted entitled "Canerican is Such an Idiot". When was that, April 1st?

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

Exactly. We've lost a lot of good long time lizards over this.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Read my post @52. I think that I am not alone with my thoughts.

Maybe the theory of evolution does have practical application, unlike much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and some other sciences. I didn't think it did. But, either way, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

re: #59 nbenhaim

As a perfect example, the documentary he railed against, "Expelled", never once said that evolution is impossible or that it isn't real. It merely said there were problems with it and it's hard to believe that evolution alone is responsible for our creation.

The movie was a deceitful piece of propaganda made by liars and nutcases.

When the poster "spytalk" shows up, ask him what his science degrees are in, and if he is "InternationalObserver" reincarnated, as it were.

Unlike the previous fast moving ID threads, I'm actually keeping up with this one.

re: #56 Slumbering Behemoth

There are some that believe that having faith in a Judeo-Christian creator is the one and only requirement for conservatism.

I have relatives who think like that. They consider themselves to be staunch conservatives by virtue of their faith alone, but on the issues they are very much in line with leftist, progsoc thinking. Pro-Nanny State, very much anti-second amendment, and very much in favor of higher taxes for those who have more simply because they have more.

But don't you dare tell them their views are not conservative, they won't hear any of it.

There are a lot of Catholics like that, because the church's stand on things is left of center when it comes to economics, right of center on social/moral issues. You can't vote along party lines AND the church's line at the same time.

re: #62 Killgore Trout

which is too bad.

since it's charles' blog, he's going to have to decide whether railing against ID is worth alienating people who have supported him for many years.

a literal personal omnipotent Being created the Universe and all that is within from nothing -- for His glory -- and that of His Son. Now you know.. ;-)

PS: On the day the first man (Adam) was created... how old did he LOOK. think about it.

re: #63 GeeWiz

Yes, a lot of people would wish this would just go away but it's becoming a real social issue and needs to be dealt with.

Toss up question:

How many public school districts, if any, nationwide, are currently teaching Creationism/ID as science?

I can't find any. In fact, it seems the ID/Creationists have been trying to push their agenda into public schools for 20 years now and have gotten smacked down by State and Federal courts every time they've tried it. So, where's the clear and present danger to secular science education in this country? I just don't see what all the fuss is about, there is no looming theocracy.

/apparently not dead yet

Charles, you can post whatever you want, but this sideshow distraction of creationism vs. evolution is eroding the importance of this website. Or, did we defeat the islamic fascists already? Creationists may be guilty of misinterpreting what the Bible says, but they are no threat to civilization. Don't dilute the awesomeness of LGF.

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Bite me Killgore.

I spend HOURS on LGF on a daily basis. Most of the time, I just lurk and enjoy the fantastic articles. There are times I have felt like posting, but have refrained. Why? Because of pricks like YOU. YOU and people like you make people like ME feel unwelcome, even when we have posted something NOT inflammatory or trollish in any way.

In regards to my comment, This post seems VERY out of character for Charles. Indeed, it reminds me VERY much of some of the crap I see posted at D-KOS and DU, and even on Slashdot from time to time. I just don't get it, because the way it is posted seems to be an attempt to inflame beleivers and people of faith. It is worded as a direct insult to those who believe, and some of the follow-up comments are even worse. VERY much D-KOS type posts.

I tried to post something that would bring people together and you took the opportunity to flame me. Fine. Maybe Charles has said as much as I said before, but I sure haven't seen it. Then again, I usually avoid these kinds of articles no mater where I go so it's likely I just missed it. However, it would be nice if he included that sentiment in his article just to avoid the kind of misunderstanding we are apparently having here.

Heck, maybe this is backwards day at LGF and nobody told me. Maybe we are all supposed to be posting like the LeftTards at KOS and DU and I just didn't get the memo. I dunno.

Either way, I know it's gonna be a Looooong time before I bother posting again. Buh bye.

re: #20 Charles

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

Hey Charles.. I have an idea for your blog.. I thought of it the other night and i think it's a great idea for you..
Once a week you should open up an special open thread.. And everyone that posts to it would write any story they wish..to be voted upon by the members..dingy.
The lowest person each week would be voted off just like american idol. Each week we would progress and read from the wonderful contributors here about some great topics. 500 words max and you get to chose the topic..we get to chose the winner

re: #74 wearyman

Because of pricks like YOU.

You're welcome.

Talkorigins is a great resource, but I have to quibble with the wording in their logo at the top: "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" -- which subtly encourages a false dichotomy in which you've got Militant Atheists! on one side and Young Earth Creationists! on the other.

May I recommend to Charles and everyone else a page that I stumbled across some months ago?

Gallup Still Asking the Wrong Questions in Evolution Poll

Here's the money quote:

There are five clearly definable schools of thought in the public on the topic of evolution and creation, each with a distinct perspective.
[...]
1. Atheistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God played no part in it.

2. Theistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God had a hand in it.

3. Intelligent Design, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the development of species over time are the results of the design of an intelligent agent, which may or may not be God.

4. Old Earth Creationism, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and man was created fully formed by God within the last 50,000 years.

5. Young Earth Creationism, in which God created the universe, the earth, and man in one week 6,000 years ago.

I don't entirely agree with his "five-school" scheme -- for example, I think there might be some justification for defining "Deistic Evolution" as a category distinct from "Theistic Evolution," which would make for at least six schools of thought.

Also, I'm not sure if his definition of "Intelligent Design" is adequate -- he sees it differing from Theistic Evolution in that ID allegedly makes no claims about the identity of the Designer, while TE assumes that evolution was overseen by God. But in my understanding, ID is also defined by its overt challenge to methodological naturalism, which is why the Catholic Church suspects it of being a "god of the gaps" approach.

Still, kudos to the author for explaining to his fellow Christians that there are more than two alternatives to choose from.

re: #70 unixrab

On the day the first man (Adam) was created... how old did he LOOK. think about it.

A perfect imitation of a thing is the real thing. (This is actually the answer to nihilism, but it seems to apply here too.)

re: #79 _Felix

Damn, I didn't mean nihilism, I meant, um, solipsism. Wrong ism.

re: #74 wearyman

I just don't get it, because the way it is posted seems to be an attempt to inflame beleivers and people of faith. It is worded as a direct insult to those who believe, and some of the follow-up comments are even worse.

If you are that sensitive then perhaps you'll enjoy posting on a Cristian or creationist blog instead. Take a look at yourself; You're "inflamed" by facts, you are "insulted" by science. Reality offends you. The article does not contain any insults only facts. Yet you are offended.

re: #74 wearyman
..I will pray for you.

Where's the Pat Condell thread?

re: #78 Throbert McGeere: #79 _Felix

A perfect imitation of a thing is the real thing. (This is actually the answer to nihilism, but it seems to apply here too.)

Does that apply to human-form replicators and Cylons, too?
In that case there won't be much on the SciFi channel next season.

I. for one, enjoy discussing this topic every time it is posted. There is a lot to learn in this subject area, especially for someone like me who was born into young earth creationism and was told that it was blasphemous to even question it.

re: #83 Killgore Trout

Where's the Pat Condell Robertson thread?

/pretty sure you made a mistake there

re: #85 gman

I. for one, enjoy discussing this topic every time it is posted. There is a lot to learn in this subject area, especially for someone like me who was born into young earth creationism and was told that it was blasphemous to even question it.

As a religious scientist, I have to agree with you.

re: #83 Killgore Trout
Who is Pat Condell?
If people are gonna post here-1) Be tough
2) Facts, facts, facts
3) Don't be thin skinned
4) It is CHARLES blog!

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

I haven't seen any "ID is bullshit" posts, especially none from our host, but I have seen a lot of "ID is not science" posts, a statement which is 100% factual.

Religion and science are only mutually exclusive to childlike minds. Perhaps a lot of the blame has to do with Christianity being so historically obsessed with the importance of literal beliefs. It is astonishing the amount of blood that has been shed in the history of Christianity over interpretation of scripture. Of course the Muslims are worse. But to base salvation on fine points of theological doctrine is absurd.

re: #86 Killian Bundy

Heh.

re: #88 pingjockey

Who is Pat Condell?

/a militant atheist, just like Killgore

re: #88 pingjockey

Pat Condell

re: #88 pingjockey

4) It is CHARLES blog!

One of the best blogs in the world..IMO

re: #92 Killian Bundy

I think he'd look good in a Pope hat.

re: #92 Killian Bundy

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Aha. That guy. Didn't know his name. Thanks.

Eddie Izzard and Noah:

re: #94 HoosierHoops

Damn straight!

Everyone's complaining about the lack of energy in this country, but it's a non-scientific superstitious dread of nuclear energy that has made it so.

My money says that some of the folks complaining have spent more time talking marriage ammendment and other social issues than energy.

Anti-science politicking from the left and from the right is a big part of the stasist mud we are in and why we've been slipping and sliding in situ for 35 friggin years.

re: #78 Throbert McGee

But in my understanding, ID is also defined by its overt challenge to methodological naturalism

"Methodological naturalism" means, basically, that And then a miracle occurred! is never a valid scientific hypothesis. In other words, even if a scientist personally believes in the possibility of miracles, the game rules of science do not allow him to invoke miraculous explanations while he's "on the clock" as a scientist.

(And the term is often contrasted with "metaphysical naturalism" -- the worldview that there REALLY are no miracles or anything supernatural. Scientists who believe in God implicitly reject "metaphysical naturalism," yet they can still adhere to "methodological naturalism" in trying to understand and explain how the universe works.)

Of course, this FAQ is far from comprehensive, and in many cases the "thorough debunking" consists of nothing but the academic tossing up of possible sources of error in certain creationist scientists' reports, as was the case when I last mentioned carbon-14 in coal. When not even that is possible, it seems more convenient to ignore the claim entirely and hope the vast list that is present is intimidating enough, as is the case with carbon-14 in natural diamonds.

In short, it is not always feasible to rely entirely on this FAQ.

re: #32 Josephine

Okay, I've just overreacted. I'll take a break from the computer now. Maybe I'll throw some cold water on my face while I'm at it.

If I misunderstood #7, please let me know, and I will gladly apologize later.

But equating Christians who believe in creationism (not the head honchos who promote ID as a political movement to push religion) with holocaust deniers is a gross insult.

You did not over-react. I'm anti ID and I thought that remark was disgusting.

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

there are many people with lots of posts who are also tired of seeing all of this "ID is bullshit" stuff @ LGF, but they have been here long enough to know that it is, of course, charles' blog and he can print whatever he wants to.

I don't believe there are THAT many Biblical literalists among us. As for people who believe God created the universe, well we have loads of those. I'd say 90% or higher. Arguing evolution is not the same thing as tearing down religious lizards.

re: #62 Killgore Trout

Exactly. We've lost a lot of good long time lizards over this.

That's the problem when you take the echo out of the echo chamber. Some people don't want any debate here whatsoever and on certain topics we don't have any real debate, but considering Charles' opinion on this subject as well as the majority of the pro-evolution posters' positions there is no GOOD reason to leave. We take issue with blatant lies about scientists, poorly thought arguments and blanket statements that cannot be backed up by evidence.

A real conservative, even one who believes in ID, doesn't want the government teaching religion to children in public schools. A real conservative realizes that government along with most organizations is incompetent and not worthy of the right to decide what the children believe to be fact.

A person who wants their version of religion taught as fact is not a conservative, they are leftists who want everyone else to think the way they do.

re: #101 George guy

Very true, the FAQ itself says as much.

re: #99 Thanos

Everyone's complaining about the lack of energy in this country, but it's a non-scientific superstitious dread of nuclear energy that has made it so.

My money says that some of the folks complaining have spent more time talking marriage ammendment and other social issues than energy.

Anti-science politicking from the left and from the right is a big part of the stasist mud we are in and why we've been slipping and sliding in situ for 35 friggin years.

Most of us can chew gum and walk, just like this blog, it can
discuss and think about more than one issue.

re: #86 Killian Bundy

Where's the Pat Condell Robertson thread?

That truly would be a mistake, but you wouldn't find me bitching and whining at our host about how he should run his own blog, as some folk like to do when issues that make them uncomfortable come up.

re: #102 DeathtotheSwiss

A real conservative realizes that when the government capitulates to religion, there is no guarantee the religion it favors will be yours.

In this political climate, it would probably be Islam.

re: #25 LEGION

Life sucks and then you die.

Your day planner is quite sketchy.

re: #78 Throbert McGee

Talkorigins is a great resource, but I have to quibble with the wording in their logo at the top: "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" -- which subtly encourages a false dichotomy in which you've got Militant Atheists! on one side and Young Earth Creationists! on the other.

May I recommend to Charles and everyone else a page that I stumbled across some months ago?

Gallup Still Asking the Wrong Questions in Evolution Poll

Here's the money quote:

I don't entirely agree with his "five-school" scheme -- for example, I think there might be some justification for defining "Deistic Evolution" as a category distinct from "Theistic Evolution," which would make for at least six schools of thought.

Also, I'm not sure if his definition of "Intelligent Design" is adequate -- he sees it differing from Theistic Evolution in that ID allegedly makes no claims about the identity of the Designer, while TE assumes that evolution was overseen by God. But in my understanding, ID is also defined by its overt challenge to methodological naturalism, which is why the Catholic Church suspects it of being a "god of the gaps" approach.

Still, kudos to the author for explaining to his fellow Christians that there are more than two alternatives to choose from.

Doesn't make any sense, science admits ignorance to whether or not there is a God. It's not atheism, it's lack of evidence and being able to prove or disprove that fact. This cutting up is just a way to say, "these people believe this" and "these people believe that" and does nothing to debate the actual arguments, evidence and science behind evolution.

re: #106 angst

Agreed. I find it very hypocritical that so many people support the Disco Institute's "Academic Freedom" bills because they would riot in the streets if the same bill was pushed by CAIR.

re: #104 NonNativeTexan

Most of us can chew gum and walk, just like this blog, it can
discuss and think about more than one issue.

Well then why are people complaining so much when once a day out of six to twenty posts Charles posts an anti Discovery Institute thread?

Since most creationism is folklore

You know, that would fit nicely in the current thread as one of the opinions of the Iranian film critics.

re: #80 _Felix

Damn, I didn't mean nihilism, I meant, um, solipsism. Wrong ism.

My point is: God (if He is God), has the ability to create things with the appearance...or even actuality of "age" -- If that is the case, then as a creationist, I agree the universe is 13 some odd Billion years old... and the earth 4.4442 Billion years old... that's irrelevant. The real question is.. after man is extinct...and aliens come down to my living room and observe my faux plastic ficus tree --- will they wonder how it evolved? Or who created it. ? ;-) hooah!

re: #44 wearyman

The post by canerican sure sounds right.

Why the heck is Charles posting this type of crap which is SURE to piss off a large majority of his readers? Is there a ghost poster? Has someone from D-KOS hacked into Charles' system and is posting as him? Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Have you actually, like, read any of these threads? If you had, you could not possibly say the things you said above.

re: #110 Thanos

Well then why are people complaining so much when once a day out of six to twenty posts Charles posts an anti Discovery Institute thread?

Because it is once or twice a day. I don't mind it, but some do.

re: #74 wearyman

Bite me Killgore.

I spend HOURS on LGF on a daily basis. Most of the time, I just lurk and enjoy the fantastic articles.

So many of these negative people with very few posts say this same thing.

Either way, I know it's gonna be a Looooong time before I bother posting again. Buh bye.

And this is a problem for LGF - why?

re: #102 DeathtotheSwiss

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

there are many people with lots of posts who are also tired of seeing all of this "ID is bullshit" stuff @ LGF, but they have been here long enough to know that it is, of course, charles' blog and he can print whatever he wants to.

I don't believe there are THAT many Biblical literalists among us. As for people who believe God created the universe, well we have loads of those. I'd say 90% or higher. Arguing evolution is not the same thing as tearing down religious lizards.

don't put words in my mouth. i haven't said in any of my posts that charles is tearing down religious lizards.

what i DID say is that this is a divisive issue. and, IMHO, unnecessarily so due to this blog's past focus and subject matter.

Hate to be a grouch since I only get on this site probably once a week, but enough already.

Perhaps we should have "once a day out of six to twenty posts" about Britney Spears and her cooch. It seems just as pointful.

I don't care about this debate. It's neverending and cyclical. People who believe in ID aren't going to be converted by a these threads. Nor are people who are evolutionists. This is utterly pointless. So give 'er up, dude.

Evolution is BADASS.

The mutants rule! Long live science!

re: #117 mjk
It isn't pointless. Brittany Spears maybe pointless, but ID debate isn't.

re: #117 mjk

Hate to be a grouch since I only get on this site probably once a week, but enough already.

Perhaps we should have "once a day out of six to twenty posts" about Britney Spears and her cooch. It seems just as pointful.

I don't care about this debate. It's neverending and cyclical. People who believe in ID aren't going to be converted by a these threads. Nor are people who are evolutionists. This is utterly pointless. So give 'er up, dude.

I have changed my thinking on the ID movement because of the
initial threads on this. Haven't changed my mind on ID, but on
the ID movement. But that did happen 10-20-39 threads ago.

If you don't like the thread, it's easy enough not to read them folks.

/just saying

re: #116 blue_like_jazz

don't put words in my mouth. i haven't said in any of my posts that charles is tearing down religious lizards.

what i DID say is that this is a divisive issue. and, IMHO, unnecessarily so due to this blog's past focus and subject matter.

The blog's focus and subject matter has always been contingent on the whim of Charles Johnson.

And to be divisive, a larger percentage of our population would have to first believe in the young Earth, literal interpretation of the Bible line of thinking and they don't. If anything, those young Earthers among us are the ones confusing the conversation and throwing up the straw man arguments.

re: #76 Killgore Trout

You're welcome.

For a prick, you have impeccable manners.

re: #117 mjk

I don't care about this debate.

And yet here you are. I'm sending you the bill for my iron-o-meter repairs, you just broke it.

See, here's the thing -- all you have to do to see what are the most popular topics at LGF is look at the tag cloud in the left sidebar.

The bigger keywords are the ones with more posts on that subject. Notice how small 'evolution' and 'intelligent design' are in that cloud. They're teensy! Look closely, you might miss them.

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Huh? I did not think I was talking about teaching creationism in
school. I was just responding to the question as to why many
people are put off by the ID threads. I do not believe theology
should be taught in science class.

re: #112 unixrab

The real question is.. after man is extinct...and aliens come down to my living room and observe my faux plastic ficus tree --- will they wonder how it evolved? Or who created it. ? ;-) hooah!

Well, until they figure out that it's plastic, and that there were also humans on the planet with the capacity to create plastic fig trees, it would be entirely reasonable for the aliens to wonder how it evolved - and mostly unreasonable for them to wonder who created it. Though if the only claim creationists make about God is that He is some guy who creates tacky ornaments, they might have a case worth arguing.

re: #126 Charles

See, here's the thing -- all you have to do to see what are the most popular topics at LGF is look at the tag cloud in the left sidebar.

The bigger keywords are the ones with more posts on that subject. Notice how small 'evolution' and 'intelligent design' are in that cloud. They're teensy! You might miss them.

CAIR is more popular than intelligent design.

I honestly wish we would stop labeling them ID threads, since if you are a Christian of course you believe in a designer/creator ...

They should be "Discovery Institute threads" since that is the root of this evil. DI chose the term "ID" for a reason if you follow the case history, remember they are a small minority trying to swing the entire religious right to their bidding.

/of course there are also ties to Birchers, Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and Luap Nor at DI.

The point isn't necessarily to change minds. I don't know what Charles' motivation may be, but for a lot of the ID antagonists it's a matter of consciousness-raising. To point out that there are organized movements afoot that are anti-science, and that it's better to speak up in opposition (if you oppose) than to say nothing.

Religion has been given a free pass up to 9/11 (in particular) and many in the pro-science group want to subject religion to a higher level of inquiry. Dawkins in particular takes the position that the existence of God is a scientific matter. If there is a super-mind somewhere in the universe, it is a matter of scientific discovery to find it and explore it.

re: #130 Thanos

I honestly wish we would stop labeling them ID threads, since if you are a Christian of course you believe in a designer/creator ...

They should be "Discovery Institute threads" since that is the root of this evil. DI chose the term "ID" for a reason if you follow the case history, remember they are a small minority trying to swing the entire religious right to their bidding.

/of course there are also ties to Birchers, Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and Luap Nor at DI.

I completely agree. Even when I use the derogatory term "IDiot" I'm really only referring to their ilk.

And by the way, if all the dings had been positive for these threads, some would be among the most popular ones posted at LGF.

re: #109 Killgore Trout

Agreed. I find it very hypocritical that so many people support the Disco Institute's "Academic Freedom" bills because they would riot in the streets if the same bill was pushed by CAIR.

Well, I remember reading about a lawsuit over prayer in schools, I think it was in Texas. Originally, I thought, "Well, why not, it's their school." Then I saw the suit was brought by a Catholic and a Jew who evidently weren't allowed to say the prayer because they weren't Baptist!

I think it is extremely important to treat all religions the same. No favoritism and no discrimination. The laws are much more likely to backfire against Christians, IMHO. Look at what's happening in the UK, and in Canada, with the hate speech laws, and here with our political correctness.

If we allow ID in the science classroom, the next day someone will want Headscarf 101 offered in home ec., and the goofy multiculti types will be falling all over themselves to provide it.

Christians wanting more religion in the schools will be very sorry if their wish is granted, mark my words. If you want prayer in schools, send 'em to a religious school. I do.

re: #130 Thanos

Sounds good to me, DI threads.

re: #20 Charles

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

But Charles, thats not what I am saying, I explained, this site becomes less about Conservatism, and more about Creationist-bashing.

Unless you can create the leap of logic that somehow Conservatism = belief in evolution, you should agree that this site is no longer a strictly Conservative site, at more, like I said a Conservative/ Creationist-bashing site.

Charles, I love your political views, you are dead-on terrorism, and almost everything else, but this kills me. I have so much respect for you, but I can't take the fact that you seem to take every opportunity to try and insult those of us that believe in creation.

And just to make things clear, I believe that evolution exists, there is no doubt the easiest way to prove it is during the industrial revolution, England, which only had white moths, began to get black moths as everything became covered in soot, and the their white color made them susceptible to predators - so they evolved. And I believe that we were initially created, yes, by God.

That being said, I think that you can understand how being called an idiot (as I am sure I will be in reply to this post) is pretty offensive, and actually makes me sad, especially from people that I would have considered ideological allies.

Thanks Charles. You've convinced me. I really appreciate the fact that you are taking so much time to devote to this topic.

You have convinced me that those of us who are religious have nowhere that our beliefs are not mocked and ridiculed. You have convinced me that by whatever method God chose to bring the world into existence, the Genesis account will always be marginalized. I guess that all those scientists are all so much smarter than God. Does that mean that I, all of a sudden, lose my curiosity in science. No, the science serves to glorify something other than itself.

Those of us who call ourselves Christians well know that, in the Gospels, Christ regarded Adam and Eve as historical figures. He accepted the works of the Torah as historical fact. He would know, wouldn't He. If He was who He said that He was, He was there.

I really don't care whether or not evolution is taught in public schools. They do such a great job of teaching every other subject they are supposed to teach.

Christianity has been the greatest civilizing force known to this benighted planet. It has endured through persecution and prosperity. In every age, Christians have been threatened with death or torture if they did not bow down to the "god" of the age, whether that be Caesar, money, materialism, Mohammed or anything else. That is all the evolution ideology is, a god of this age. You can call me whatever name you like. I do not care. I am not going to bow to this idol.

I make no effort to remain where I am not wanted. If Believers, who do not bow to your idol, are not welcome. I will simply add LGF to the many parts of the internet that I will not visit.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

re: #136 buzzsawmonkey

Yup. See my post #134.

re: #136 buzzsawmonkey

Yep, I agree, it's consistent.

re: #128 _Felix

re: #128 _Felix

Well, until they figure out that it's plastic, and that there were also humans on the planet with the capacity to create plastic fig trees, it would be entirely reasonable for the aliens to wonder how it evolved - and mostly unreasonable for them to wonder who created it. Though if the only claim creationists make about God is that He is some guy who creates tacky ornaments, they might have a case worth arguing.

Plastic, bone, stone, protein ...whatever. Without the ability to think beyond what you see and measure, one can't reason... or arrive at truth.

Retard Design

Sorry, but I had to whip out another one for our real smart non-IDers.

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

It is perfectly consistent to argue against the imposition of creationism and the imposition of sharia. In both cases, it is an argument against permitting a single religious viewpoint to dominate the necessarily neutral public sphere.

As angst pointed out in #106 above, opening the door to the legitimacy of dominance by a single religious point of view is no guarantee that the point of view will be the one you favor--either immediately, or farther down the road. But once the door is opened, the damage has been done.

... and this is where islam wins again.

like it or not, america was founded on judeo-christian principles. almost everyone here followed this same general set of beliefs until the activism of the 60's (and forward) pushed God out of the mainstream american public sphere. i'm sure the founding fathers never expected this paradigm shift.

now the judeo-christian belief set is put on "equal footing" with every other religious system. the slippery slope theory of "well, if you let the christians do it, you'll have to let the muslims and hindus do it" is a pathetic state of affairs.

so is the answer "NO RELIGION" in the public sphere, ever at all?

is that why america was created?

So, lets see if I've got this straight: I can only believe in either God or science. I can't believe in both.

...There are two sides to every argument, and both sides have their share of idiocy.

re: #117 mjk

Hate to be a grouch since I only get on this site probably once a week, but enough already.

Perhaps we should have "once a day out of six to twenty posts" about Britney Spears and her cooch. It seems just as pointful.

I don't care about this debate. It's neverending and cyclical. People who believe in ID aren't going to be converted by a these threads. Nor are people who are evolutionists. This is utterly pointless. So give 'er up, dude.

Actually, I've learned a great deal from these threads. So have a lot of other people (at least according to their own comments).

When Charles started posting about Islamofascism it was a new topic for LGF, too. I'm sure some of his original readers left. A few hundred thousand new ones showed up. And a lot of people learned something they didn't know before.

re: #137 Canerican

But Charles, thats not what I am saying, I explained, this site becomes less about Conservatism, and more about Creationist-bashing.

Unless you can create the leap of logic that somehow Conservatism = belief in evolution, you should agree that this site is no longer a strictly Conservative site, at more, like I said a Conservative/ Creationist-bashing site.

Charles, I love your political views, you are dead-on terrorism, and almost everything else, but this kills me. I have so much respect for you, but I can't take the fact that you seem to take every opportunity to try and insult those of us that believe in creation.

And just to make things clear, I believe that evolution exists, there is no doubt the easiest way to prove it is during the industrial revolution, England, which only had white moths, began to get black moths as everything became covered in soot, and the their white color made them susceptible to predators - so they evolved. And I believe that we were initially created, yes, by God.

That being said, I think that you can understand how being called an idiot (as I am sure I will be in reply to this post) is pretty offensive, and actually makes me sad, especially from people that I would have considered ideological allies.

How can you equate insult to disagreement? If I'm working on trouble-shooting a piece of equipment and someone walks up to me and says, "you're looking in the wrong area, you shouldn't be on that circuit board" I will either a) agree with them and change my tactics or b) disagree and explain why. I don't consider that to be insulting when someone tells me I'm wrong.

What do Obama, Al Gore, PETA fanatics, and the evolutionary elite have in common? All are strident defenders of the theory that man is descended from a single-celled organism. In essence, according to them, hamsters and humans have a common origin in premordial slime. Perhaps that is why they have such a low opinion of human beings, equating us with small, furry animals.

re: #122 Thanos

If you don't like the thread, it's easy enough not to read them folks.

/just saying

I don't get it. The freedom to move among the threads is kind of obvious.

I think we've got DI mobies here tonight trying to make this into an attack on religion, which it clearly is not.

If dramatic exits are supposed to influence me to stop posting on this topic, forget it. I've been dramatically exited upon by the best.

_cough

If these topics make you uneasy, skip to the next. Or grow some thick skin.

re: #145 Lynn B.

Actually, I've learned a great deal from these threads. So have a lot of other people (at least according to their own comments).

When Charles started posting about Islamofascism it was a new topic for LGF, too. I'm sure some of his original readers left. A few hundred thousand new ones showed up. And a lot of people learned something they didn't know before.

I've learned a lot too, and am ever so grateful to have knowledge about this that I didn't have before, plus tips on a lot of reading material that's important to have to understand this.

re: #138 CDR Resser

I see those drama classes are paying off quite nicely.

re: #149 Thanos

I think we've got DI mobies here tonight trying to make this into an attack on religion, which it clearly is not.

I agree - every time I see an accusation of faith-bashing, where there clearly has not been any, I have to wonder about that person's motives. If they've read these threads, they must know full well there is no faith-bashing tolerated.

After that last post, it's time for a repost of this Tom Petty vid...

Also notice how nobody's arguing with me that there are Bircher, Ron Paul, and Reconstructionist ties at Discovery Institute.

re: #156 Thanos

After that last post, it's time for a repost of this Tom Petty vid...

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Also notice how nobody's arguing with me that there are Bircher, Ron Paul, and Reconstructionist ties at Discovery Institute.

I've seen the posts, and there is a noticeable lack of interest in following that line.

re: #138 CDR Resser

I make no effort to remain where I am not wanted. If Believers, who do not bow to your idol, are not welcome. I will simply add LGF to the many parts of the internet that I will not visit.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

Six posts. Looks like LGF was already one of the many parts of the internet that you would not visit.

re: #151 buzzsawmonkey

so, is a science teacher not even allowed, in your opinion, to talk about ID as a THEORY in the classroom, just so students are aware that some people hold to that idea?

i'm not talking about TEACHING ID, i'm talking about letting students know that SOME people believe that this is how the universe was formed.

re: #122 Thanos

If you don't like the thread, it's easy enough not to read them folks.

/just saying

And why is this topic is continually brought-up at LGF ?
Bring back the throbbing memo. That was interesting.

re: #137 Canerican

But Charles, thats not what I am saying, I explained, this site becomes less about Conservatism, and more about Creationist-bashing.

Unless you can create the leap of logic that somehow Conservatism = belief in evolution, you should agree that this site is no longer a strictly Conservative site, at more, like I said a Conservative/ Creationist-bashing site.

...

Um ... I've been reading LGF for 6 years and it has NEVER been anywhere close to a "strictly Conservative site." It's never been close to a strictly anything site other than anti-idiotarian.

I think you've been paying too much attention to Charles' critics.

re: #154 Slumbering Behemoth

I see those drama classes are paying off quite nicely.

The hand on the forehead indicates sorrow.

FINALLY, A POST ABOUT EVOLUTION!

re: #137 Canerican

re: #138 CDR Resser

Faith is great. I have faith. Faith is not science and has no place in the classroom. Yes, I know the gorebull warming asshats have their scientists. I believe that gorebull warming will be disproven just like in the 70s they said we'd be in an iceage by now. I want no faith of any kind in public education. Just the facts. ID is faith. No one should have come across as disparaging your faith or called you an idiot. That is wrong.

Maybe the problem is that we don't have a real science thread on the issue where people can talk pure science. Most of these arguments aren't in defense of ID, the Disco Institute or Young Earth...they're bursts of anger at having their ideas pelted and then accusations of unfairness.

How many times do we have to say that we're not trying to turn Christians and Jews into atheists? How many times do we have to say that belief in God does not stop belief in evolution or vice versa?

Do we have some anti-ID proponents that get insulting, yes! But they are the exception rather than the rule. So what is the motivation for the outrage when there is no direct attack involved? Even for the Young Earther-Literal interpretationalists, it's their beliefs that we're dismissing and not them personally and yet...here we are...debating what we said and not the subject at hand.

re: #156 Thanos

that's a silly argument.

look at all of the idiotarians who believe in the theory of evolution!

re: #141 unixrab

re: #128 _Felix

Plastic, bone, stone, protein ...whatever. Without the ability to think beyond what you see and measure, one can't reason... or arrive at truth.

Uh-huh. It's fine to conjecture that the fig tree had a creator. It's fine to conjecture a vast number of contradictory things. This alone is not a reason for any one of those things to be true.

re: #150 Charles

I could care less whether or not you continue to post on this subject. You blog, your choice. What I object to is the ridicule for not following the "party line". Do I know how it all happened, no. Is there evidence that point to possible explanations, sure. Are you really saying that The Omnipotent couldn't have had anything to do with it.

Respectfully Submitted; though less than before
CDR Resser

re: #159 blue_like_jazz

so, is a science teacher not even allowed, in your opinion, to talk about ID as a THEORY in the classroom, just so students are aware that some people hold to that idea?

ID is not a scientific theory, It's an untestable hypothesis.

re: #156 Thanos

After that last post, it's time for a repost of this Tom Petty vid...

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Also notice how nobody's arguing with me that there are Bircher, Ron Paul, and Reconstructionist ties at Discovery Institute.

I dreamt that me and Tom were hanging out last night.

Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.

Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

-- From the Wisdom of Lao Stinky, Volume IV

re: #169 Killgore Trout

okay, split hairs... you know what i meant by the question.

re: #159 blue_like_jazz

so, is a science teacher not even allowed, in your opinion, to talk about ID as a THEORY in the classroom, just so students are aware that some people hold to that idea?

i'm not talking about TEACHING ID, i'm talking about letting students know that SOME people believe that this is how the universe was formed.

You can talk about it all day long in Comparative World Religion, History, and Cosmology classes, it doesn't belong in Science class unless you want to make Science about the supernatural, which is clearly the intent of the Discovery Institute.

I happen to be a YEC but I have no problem with science. I don't think science is out to prove the Bible wrong or cast out God. Science is a group of people who have adopted a method of looking at the world to see if they can find out causes and supply an understanding of our universe. I don't see how anyone could object to this.

The method that science uses to obtain data and the assumptions they make can lead to useful information which can lead to devices to benefit mankind. This I accept and I enjoy these devices just like everyone else. Where faith enters into my view of the world is in looking into the past. I personally don't accept the uniformitarianism assumption because supernatural events don't fit in this view. So I am free to believe that the world may be much younger than indicated by scientific methods. But this believe is not founded in science, it is founded in the belief in the supernatural. My belief does not make me a nut-case like some on the site would imply. I find it easy to deal with science as science and faith as faith. I do look at theories and do ponder some of the fringe theories dealing with the universe. But these are still in the realm of science and outside of my faith.

For me data is king and raw information is where I try to stay. When I see theories from both sides go off into OZ I tend to stop listening.

re: #137 Canerican

But Charles, thats not what I am saying, I explained, this site becomes less about Conservatism, and more about Creationist-bashing.

Unless you can create the leap of logic that somehow Conservatism = belief in evolution, you should agree that this site is no longer a strictly Conservative site, at more, like I said a Conservative/ Creationist-bashing site.

Charles, I love your political views, you are dead-on terrorism, and almost everything else, but this kills me. I have so much respect for you, but I can't take the fact that you seem to take every opportunity to try and insult those of us that believe in creation.

And just to make things clear, I believe that evolution exists, there is no doubt the easiest way to prove it is during the industrial revolution, England, which only had white moths, began to get black moths as everything became covered in soot, and the their white color made them susceptible to predators - so they evolved. And I believe that we were initially created, yes, by God.

That being said, I think that you can understand how being called an idiot (as I am sure I will be in reply to this post) is pretty offensive, and actually makes me sad, especially from people that I would have considered ideological allies.

Interesting you say that because I have never been under the impression that this was a "strictly conservative" site. That's why I enjoy it so much.

re: #138 CDR Resser

re: #143 blue_like_jazz

... and this is where islam wins again.

like it or not, america was founded on judeo-christian principles. almost everyone here followed this same general set of beliefs until the activism of the 60's (and forward) pushed God out of the mainstream american public sphere. i'm sure the founding fathers never expected this paradigm shift.

now the judeo-christian belief set is put on "equal footing" with every other religious system. the slippery slope theory of "well, if you let the christians do it, you'll have to let the muslims and hindus do it" is a pathetic state of affairs.

so is the answer "NO RELIGION" in the public sphere, ever at all?

is that why america was created?

The answer is "No religion" in the public sphere. And no, the founding Fathers never expected it. That is why we are where we are. Too many people are unwilling to stand up and say "Your religion is a sorry-ass piece of misogynistic, backwards crap," because they have no moral high ground on which to stand, only the shifting sands of moral relativism. They've not been educated in right & wrong, good & evil- they're not even allowed to talk about it because that means passing judgment, and we all know that being judgmental is bad.

And not enough of the folks who don't believe in God have read enough Locke and Hobbes to understand natural law outside the context of religion, concepts which the Founding Fathers most certainly understood.

re: #158 reine.de.tout

I have been more of a lurker than anything else. I will refrain from further insinuation. Thanks for noticing.

re: #159 blue_like_jazz

i'm not talking about TEACHING ID, i'm talking about letting students know that SOME people believe that this is how the universe was formed.

Any 'student' that doesn't already know this wouldn't even be in a class to hear it, as they would have to have been living in an isolated cave their whole lives.

Students are already fully aware that there are a variety of people who follow a religion of one type or another that has a creation myth. This does not need to be covered in a science class.

As young students are taught science in school, topics include the Big Bang, and many/most will naturally wonder and ask what caused it.
What preceded it? And so forth.

In that context, mention of the concept of a creator is altogether relevant.

re: #166 blue_like_jazz

that's a silly argument.

look at all of the idiotarians who believe in the theory of evolution!

How exactly is it silly? Does it bother you in the least that Ahmanson and Rushdoony are the major impetus behind DI? Does it bother you that they love Behe at the John Birch society?

Contrast your reply with how you feel about BO's association with Wright before you answer.

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

I would add, just by the way, that I have gone on record in plenty of threads arguing that stories from the KJV Bible need to be taught--as literature, not religion--in schools today, for the simple reason that if children do not learn these stories they will be incapable of understanding the allusions in most English and American literature of the last 500 years.

These stories were taught, along with the Greek myths, and for that very reason, in high school 40 years ago. To the extent they have been removed from the curriculum, education has suffered.

However, any religious understanding of these stories was left to our parents.

I was very pleased to see how many of the great classical works were sung at our local high school competition. If you can't sing religious songs, you can't have a competitive chorale group. Period.

re: #159 blue_like_jazz

so, is a science teacher not even allowed, in your opinion, to talk about ID as a THEORY in the classroom, just so students are aware that some people hold to that idea?

i'm not talking about TEACHING ID, i'm talking about letting students know that SOME people believe that this is how the universe was formed.

You realize that if ID comes up in your average biology class, it's going to be as a joke.

ID doesn't explain why there's a fish with a neck, flat head and eyes on the top of its head that also possesses limbs that resemble limbs of early land-walking animals nor why it is only found in certain types of rock that is estimated to be around 360 million years old. It doesn't explain the size of the universe compared to it's age, it doesn't explain how measuring the universe, knowing the speed of light have allowed scientists to measure a reasonable age for the universe that exceeds 6 billion years.

ID is a list of subjective "theories". You say the banana was designed for the easy grasping of a man's hand, I say a man's hand was designed for the easy grasping of a banana. Who's right? I guess we'll find out after we die, I go to Hell for my blasphemy and you join your fellow Elect. Say Hi to Calvin for me.

re: #179 CDR Resser

I have been more of a lurker than anything else. I will refrain from further insinuation. Thanks for noticing.

Whatever.

I am curious about all these lurkers who seem to come out in waves, new ones on each thread, it seems like, to make accusations that "faith-bashing" is going on or that they've been called "idiots" (which I haven't seen, either).

re: #173 blue_like_jazz

okay, split hairs... you know what i meant by the question.

It's not hair splitting, it's a very important distiction. Evolution is a theory (along with mangetism, gravity, etc) and ID is a hypothesis with no scientific way to test it. It is not science and it's never going to become science.

re: #177 angst

So religious people have to check their faith at the door?

re: #174 Thanos

Some people believe that Harry Potter is a work of the devil, he forgot to add that part. Some people also believe that the reason such stories are evil is because they are true and teach our young how to perform witchcraft. Teachers should teach what everyone believes rather than what can be proven.

re: #174 Thanos

You can talk about it all day long in Comparative World Religion, History, and Cosmology classes, it doesn't belong in Science class unless you want to make Science about the supernatural, which is clearly the intent of the Discovery Institute.

/where is it currently being taught in science class?

re: #162 debutaunt

The hand on the forehead indicates sorrow.

And the hand on the face indicates frustration.

And just so we're clear, that is not intended as a slight at you.

re: #159 blue_like_jazz

so, is a science teacher not even allowed, in your opinion, to talk about ID as a THEORY in the classroom, just so students are aware that some people hold to that idea?

i'm not talking about TEACHING ID, i'm talking about letting students know that SOME people believe that this is how the universe was formed.

Right. Absolutely. Science teachers should talk about ID as a THEORY because students need to be aware of all the anti-scientific ideas that people hold. Of course, they can't stop at ID. Science teachers really should also talk about every other faith-based THEORY of how the universe came into being. That would only take up all the rest of the class and then there'd be no time left for actual science. The kids could go home fully educated as to several different ideas that "people hold" about the origins of the universe and ask their parents which one is "right." Or maybe just make their minds up themselves. I believe that's the PC way these days.

BTW, that is how Islam would win again (as many others here have pointed out).

re: #181 buddyg

As young students are taught science in school, topics include the Big Bang, and many/most will naturally wonder and ask what caused it.
What preceded it? And so forth.

In that context, mention of the concept of a creator is altogether relevant.

Even our state university mentioned the possibility in their excellent museum exhibition about the Universe. Right next to the ginormous fossil display. Jack Horner lives here, after all.

re: #184 DeathtotheSwiss

Who's right? I guess we'll find out after we die, I go to Hell for my blasphemy and you join your fellow Elect. Say Hi to Calvin for me.

dude, that was totally unnecessary. i'm not taking any of this personally. i'm asking some questions.

for you to get a judgmental on me is ridiculous.

re: #181 buddyg

As young students are taught science in school, topics include the Big Bang, and many/most will naturally wonder and ask what caused it.
What preceded it? And so forth.

In that context, mention of the concept of a creator is altogether relevant.

The most common argument I've seen against that runs along the lines of: What created this creator that is capable of doing this intricate creating? Positing an even more complicated 'thing' that does this creating doesn't solve the problem. It turns into an endless regression with gods all the way up, and turtles all the way down.

re: #185 reine.de.tout

If your really that concerned, you can check out when I joined. It was a little over a year ago.

re: #130 Thanos

"DI"

NOoooooooooo, flashback visions of senior DI S/Sgt. Franco Capirci at Parris Island .

re: #187 CDR Resser
Oh for crying out loud. We are talking about folks who want to teach faith as science. Not bashing faith. Quit being obtuse. I believe in God, so what. The 1st amend. is for exactly this scenario. Whose idea of ID do you want to teach; the Muslims, Hindus, Amish, Orthodox Judiasm, pick one, then watch the uproar as the left out religions howl that they have the true word of God on creation. Get a grip.

re: #194 amused

The most common argument I've seen against that runs along the lines of: What created this creator that is capable of doing this intricate creating? Positing an even more complicated 'thing' that does this creating doesn't solve the problem. It turns into an endless regression with gods all the way up, and turtles all the way down.

So if kids broach the topic of a possible creator, teachers must reply that the topic is VERBOTEN ?

re: #198 buddyg
Yep. Tell them to talk to their parents, priest, rabbi, imam, whatever.

Good grief! Where's Sharmuta?

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

It is odd to me that my children learned all about Greek and Roman Mythology in public school and when I checked around, that is the norm. For some reason, its perfectly OK to teach about those religions in public schools. But if its acceptable to cover Greek or Roman Mythology and the characters therein, why is the Bible strictly taboo. Anyone care to answer that? All I can figure is that, Oh those are just fairy tales and no one actually believes any of that stuff.

So I guess when all the Churches are empty and no one believes anymore, the public schools will be able to start teaching Bible stories.

re: #193 blue_like_jazz

I'm not taking this personally at all. But look at the logic here. With ID there is no alternative, either God comes down and confirms your belief or you die and find out.

With scientific inquiry you may very well be wrong but you can find evidence that either suggests your theory is correct or you find evidence that makes you change your mind.

And the point is very simple, if someone knows enough about Biology they are no doubt going to be hostile towards ID. You want ID taught so bad you're going to end up getting your religious beliefs attacked by a science teacher.

re: #198 buddyg

So if kids broach the topic of a possible creator, teachers must reply that the topic is VERBOTEN ?

I would expect that the conversation would go something like: "Yes, I understand that you have religious beliefs that include a supernatural creator. But this is a science class and we can only look at evidence that is subject to investigation. A supernatural creator is outside of science, so we won't be covering that in this science class."

re: #186 Killgore Trout

How do you falsify the Theory of Gravity?

re: #198 buddyg

So if kids broach the topic of a possible creator, teachers must reply that the topic is VERBOTEN ?

No, a simple explanation of why it's not science should suffice. Children are taught the scientific method in about 6th grade and it;s very easy to understand.

re: #204 slokat
Learn how to fly! With no wings.

re: #198 buddyg

So if kids broach the topic of a possible creator, teachers must reply that the topic is VERBOTEN ?

No, not necessarily. I audited my son's biology class a few years back just to catch up. G-D came up a few times, each time the teacher took it as an opportunity to describe what science is, what religion is, and their respective realms. He did it respectfully too.

re: #123 DeathtotheSwiss

The blog's focus and subject matter has always been contingent on the whim of Charles Johnson.

And to be divisive, a larger percentage of our population would have to first believe in the young Earth, literal interpretation of the Bible line of thinking and they don't. If anything, those young Earthers among us are the ones confusing the conversation and throwing up the straw man arguments.

Faulty logic:

...to be divisive, a larger percentage of our population would have to first believe in the young Earth, literal interpretation of the Bible...

The definition of (or the presence of) divisiveness is not contingent upon any specific belief one way or another. Divisiveness occurs when opposing opinions reach the level of attacking and outright bashing, as it has here. I have seen creationists and ID-ists (even when they specifically state that they do not adhere to the Discovery Institute's philosophies), equally "run out of town on a rail" simply because they will not jump on the evolution-ONLY bandwagon.

I, personally, hold beliefs that consist of a comfortable combination of elements of all three philosophies, but have hesitated to say even that because it does not toe the line. I have never visited the Discovery Institute and have no desire or inkling to do so. My faith does not, did not, and will never be even remotely formed by elitist temporal "movements" of any sort.

I joined LGF because I loved the openness and fairness here, but I have home-bound things I must attend to. With that, I bid you all good evening.

re: #197 pingjockey

Public schools do such a wonderful job of teaching kids to read.
(Sarcasm Alert) Of course they should be teaching religion. (End Sarcasm)

re: #204 slokat

How do you falsify the Theory of Gravity?

I don't.

re: #201 Mich-again

It is odd to me that my children learned all about Greek and Roman Mythology in public school and when I checked around, that is the norm. For some reason, its perfectly OK to teach about those religions in public schools. But if its acceptable to cover Greek or Roman Mythology and the characters therein, why is the Bible strictly taboo. Anyone care to answer that? All I can figure is that, Oh those are just fairy tales and no one actually believes any of that stuff.

So I guess when all the Churches are empty and no one believes anymore, the public schools will be able to start teaching Bible stories.

Wait. Did they learn all about Greek and Roman Mythology in science class? Let me guess. That would be a no.

No one said anything about not teaching about religions in public school. But who would you rather have teach your kids about religion? A teacher who proabably goes to a different church/synagogue/mosque/temple/ashram? Or their own pastor/minister/rabbi/imam/guru?

re: #201 Mich-again

It is odd to me that my children learned all about Greek and Roman Mythology in public school and when I checked around, that is the norm. For some reason, its perfectly OK to teach about those religions in public schools. But if its acceptable to cover Greek or Roman Mythology and the characters therein, why is the Bible strictly taboo. Anyone care to answer that? All I can figure is that, Oh those are just fairy tales and no one actually believes any of that stuff.

So I guess when all the Churches are empty and no one believes anymore, the public schools will be able to start teaching Bible stories.

It's not. The Bible, bible stories, and many passages therefrom come up regularly in English lit classes.

re: #202 DeathtotheSwiss

again, you are putting words in my mouth.

i have never said that i want ID taught in classrooms. i just asked if it shouldn't be mentioned along with other ideas so children know that some people believe this way.

and this quote from you towards me is hostile:

I guess we'll find out after we die, I go to Hell for my blasphemy and you join your fellow Elect. Say Hi to Calvin for me.

re: #187 CDR Resser

So religious people have to check their faith at the door?

No, they do not. It's just that religion (outside of religion class) can't be promoted by the school. I'm okay with kids wearing jewelry or articles of clothing that are religious- within limits. The limits having to do with learning (no burkas in PE), safety, and not insulting others' faiths.

I'm okay with a moment of silent reflection. I think that's good for everyone. I think kids should be able to write stories about religion if it fits with the assignment, and talk about their faith, just as they can talk about other things that are important to them.

Schools should allow the use of their facilities after hours for faith-based classes, just like they do for any other groups. And, just like any other groups, they ought to be sure the groups aren't advocating breaking the law.

But, it has to be fair and square. No promoting religion, no discriminating against it. The knife cuts both ways.

re: #209 CDR Resser
Mwahaha! Too true. I found some old fun with phonics books at a yard sale. They really helped the 8 yr old with his reading. I don't know if schools even use phonics to teach reading anymore.

re: #204 slokat

How do you falsify the Theory of Gravity?

How well a mathematical formula applies to the physical world is a physical question, and thus testable, within certain limits. For example, the proposition that all objects follow a parabolic path when thrown into the air is falsifiable; indeed, it is false. To see this, one has but to think of a feather. A slightly better proposition is that all objects follow a parabolic path when thrown in a vacuum and acted upon by gravity, which is itself falsified in regard to paths whose lengths are not negligible in proportion to a given planet's radius.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #213 blue_like_jazz

I apologize.

re: #199 pingjockey

Yep. Tell them to talk to their parents, priest, rabbi, imam, whatever.

So, it's not so much ID as it is the very concept of a creator that you're against teaching (even mentioning) in the classroom.
Thanks for clearing that up.

re: #198 buddyg

So if kids broach the topic of a possible creator, teachers must reply that the topic is VERBOTEN ?

Do you want government run schools teaching your kids about religion in a science class? Can you guarantee that it will be exactly the kind of religion you want your children to learn?

re: #211 Lynn B.

Uhh Lynn, I was replying to this part of Buzzsawmonkey's post at 170...

I would add, just by the way, that I have gone on record in plenty of threads arguing that stories from the KJV Bible need to be taught--as literature, not religion--in schools today, for the simple reason that if children do not learn these stories they will be incapable of understanding the allusions in most English and American literature of the last 500 years.

I never said it should be taught in Science class nor would I ever advocate that.

re: #212 Thanos

It's not. The Bible, bible stories, and many passages therefrom come up regularly in English lit classes.

Not around here they don't. I'm not sure about schools where you live, but Bible stories are not part of the Public school curricula here at least.

re: #217 DeathtotheSwiss

I apologize.

Thanks for that. Too many times these things get out of hand
and nobody says, your right , I should not have said it or said it
that way.

re: #217 DeathtotheSwiss

I apologize.

i accept your apology.

//shakes swiss' virtual hand

In a room full of people that believe in Zeus and the rest of those gods, most people today would be atheists, towards those gods. So that does tend to make those gods 'safe' in terms of educational subject matter. It's just a matter of historical accident that there is now a growing number of people that are atheists when it comes to the current gods in favor.

re: #218 buddyg
Correct. A persons belief, or faith is theirs. If you want your kid to have creationism taught send them to a private school. You mention or espouse a creator in a public school and someone somewhere will be offended because the wrong creator was alluded to.

re: #216 DeathtotheSwiss

And the parabola proves that a force exists, not how it works.
So you've falsified ballistics, not gravity itself.

re: #218 buddyg

So, it's not so much ID as it is the very concept of a creator that you're against teaching (even mentioning) in the classroom.
Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's fine to teach that in the appropriate classroom, just not as science.

re: #201 Mich-again

I do not recall Greek, Roman, or any other mythology being taught as scientific theory in public schools.

re: #219 Slumbering Behemoth

Do you want government run schools teaching your kids about religion in a science class? Can you guarantee that it will be exactly the kind of religion you want your children to learn?

Specific religion(s) should not be taught in school,
but mention of the concept of a creator is okay.
Especially since kids naturally wonder what might have created the Universe.

re: #204 slokat

How do you falsify the Theory of Gravity?

Well, insofar as we know it, in space. You're right in that the way gravity works is a total mystery because it's action-at-a-distance and there's no particle that carries the force of gravity. A very cool thing to think about.

Anyway. The point is, that if we ever did find out what a graviton is, we could test it by going to where there aren't any. The same cannot be said of God. God can do what He wants- to say He can't is to deny His omnipotence. He's a variable we can't control.

re: #220 Mich-again

Uhh Lynn, I was replying to this part of Buzzsawmonkey's post at 170...

Not around here they don't. I'm not sure about schools where you live, but Bible stories are not part of the Public school curricula here at least.

In high school there are well too many books that cannot be talked about without discussing the bibilical allegories in them.

re: #220 Mich-again

Not around here they don't. I'm not sure about schools where you live, but Bible stories are not part of the Public school curricula here at least.

Here's a hint, ID/Creationism isn't currently being taught in any public school science classrooms in this country.

/the State and Federal courts have consistently not allowed it

re: #208 LeePro

The definition of (or the presence of) divisiveness is not contingent upon any specific belief one way or another. Divisiveness occurs when opposing opinions reach the level of attacking and outright bashing, as it has here. I have seen creationists and ID-ists (even when they specifically state that they do not adhere to the Discovery Institute's philosophies), equally "run out of town on a rail" simply because they will not jump on the evolution-ONLY bandwagon. blockquote>

Fair enough, though I think that the amount is negligible and my own use of the word relies on the status of the whole rather than some small minority.

For instance, we have liberal trolls from time to time. Is it really divisive if he makes a comment insulting the majority of lizards or when those lizards respond in kind? If this was a 50-50 issue I would embrace your thinking on the subject.

I've had LGF as my homepage for about 4 years. Probably going to change it because I'm tired of reading this crap.

I don't believe that God created the universe in 6 days. I believe in evolution, just not all aspects of it. I believe in evolution and intelligent design. Kind of like a guy I admire and respect a lot, named Dennis Prager. Ever heard of him? Forgive me but he has a lot more credibility on the subject than any of you do.

I'm a hard core conservative. I want to kick the terrorists ass, secure the border, and lower my taxes. I believe in intelligent design and evolution, like millions of other conservatives. If you can't discuss the issue without sounding like a raving lunatic or petulant child, and acting like the other side is nuts, then just drop it.

I wish LGF would get back to the important stuff. Maybe then I'll make it my homepage again.

re: #227 Slumbering Behemoth

I do not recall Greek, Roman, or any other mythology being taught as scientific theory in public schools.

Again, I never said mythology was taught in Science class. I was just pointing out how the material was covered in public school and there were actually tests where my kids had to know the stories and characters from Greek and Roman Mythology to pass.

And if the Bible is just a fairy tale, why not include Bible stories along with mythology. Whats the pretzel logic that says covering mythology is OK, but the Bible is taboo?

re: #229 angst

Well, insofar as we know it, in space. You're right in that the way gravity works is a total mystery because it's action-at-a-distance and there's no particle that carries the force of gravity. A very cool thing to think about.

Anyway. The point is, that if we ever did find out what a graviton is, we could test it by going to where there aren't any. The same cannot be said of God. God can do what He wants- to say He can't is to deny His omnipotence. He's a variable we can't control.

I think Einstein believed gravity was a "wave" force.
If we build an instrument to see the "waves", we could conquer it.
Much like the oscilloscope and electricity.

re: #220 Mich-again

Sorry. I obviously missed your point.

I'm still not sure I get the advantage of having the Bible taught in public schools, though. Whatever version they chose to teach would be sure to conflict with the version some of the kids learn at home. Just not sure why we want to go there is all I'm saying.

How many of you are going to put words in my mouth? Geeze your like crawfish in a bucket.

re: #226 Thanos

Questions that typically come up in science class include :
What created life in the first place?
What existed before the Big Bang?

Therefore, to hypothesize on the answers in science class is logical.

re: #226 Thanos

No, it's fine to teach that in the appropriate classroom, just not as science.

Again, you are insinuating that it's currently being taught as science somewhere.

/name one public school district where that's true, I can't find any

re: #233 PDiddy

These kind of comments are beginning to look similar; almost like an organized campaign to urge Charles to stop publicizing the subject.

re: #223 amused

In a room full of people that believe in Zeus and the rest of those gods, most people today would be atheists, towards those gods. So that does tend to make those gods 'safe' in terms of educational subject matter. It's just a matter of historical accident that there is now a growing number of people that are atheists when it comes to the current gods in favor.

So in a few generations they'll be able to teach the monotheistic religions without fear of repercussions?

re: #231 Killian Bundy

Here's a hint, ID/Creationism isn't currently being taught in any public school science classrooms in this country.

/the State and Federal courts have consistently not allowed it

DI's version is specifically illegal as per he case law, but there are science teachers who bring up ID, and G-D. Maybe not tons of them, but they are out there especially in the South. They are here in Kansas. To get a teacher fired who's bringing DI / ID into science class they have to do odd things like burning a cross in a kid's arm.

re: #233 PDiddy
Would you care for some cheese?
It is Charles blog and he can damn well post what he pleases. We are here at his sufferance. Plus, like the military you weren't forced to join this site, you volunteered.

re: #236 Lynn B.

Sorry. I obviously missed your point.

I'm still not sure I get the advantage of having the Bible taught in public schools, though.

I'm not advocating it. I'm trying to understand why all public schools teach mythology (in classrooms other than science..) but the Bible stories are taboo. What are the rules for whats allowed and whats not. Did my kids really need to know about Zeus and Thor to pass a class in public school?

re: #230 Thanos

In high school there are well too many books that cannot be talked about without discussing the bibilical allegories in them.

Good point.

re: #239 Killian Bundy

Again, you are insinuating that it's currently being taught as science somewhere.

/name one public school district where that's true, I can't find any

Try Louisiana, try Kansas. The teachers are still there even though the voters fired the board in Kansas.

re: #241 angst

So in a few generations they'll be able to teach the monotheistic religions without fear of repercussions?

Seems possible to me. That would mean that the grip those religions have would have been surrendered though.

re: #222 blue_like_jazz

i accept your apology.

//shakes swiss' virtual hand

Thank you. I'm really not trying to insult anyone for their view-point here. I am completely okay with faith, even faith in a literal Genesis. I'm just tired of being accused of anti-religious sentiment. If anything I'm pro-Christianity, I could easily defend the religion if that debate ever reached its twisted little head here...and I don't believe in the idea that all religions are created equally. I personally believe, from reading the Koran, that it was written by a con-man who didn't believe his own words and that the Bible was written by people who were being genuine with their beliefs.
re: #225 slokat

And the parabola proves that a force exists, not how it works.
So you've falsified ballistics, not gravity itself.

Rats! Foiled again!

re: #244 Mich-again
I have no idea. I don't recall learning any Greek and Roman myths other than how the months are named.

re: #190 Slumbering Behemoth

I'm oppressed!

re: #235 NonNativeTexan

I think Einstein believed gravity was a "wave" force.
If we build an instrument to see the "waves", we could conquer it.
Much like the oscilloscope and electricity.

right, but all energy is carried by a particle, even if it acts as a wave, hence the really mind-blowing wave/particle duality experiments. Not that that is all that relevant to my argument. I could be totally wrong about gravitons. The point being that someone could prove me wrong.

re: #238 buddyg

Questions that typically come up in science class include :
What created life in the first place?
What existed before the Big Bang?

Therefore, to hypothesize on the answers in science class is logical.

But not scientific.

re: #234 Mich-again

I saw your explanation later, sorry if I accidentally took it out of context, that was not my intent. Threads move fast sometimes, and I can end up commenting on something that has already been addressed. My bad.

re: #250 debutaunt
" See the opression inherit in the system!" "Help, help, we're being opressed".

re: #244 Mich-again

I'm not advocating it. I'm trying to understand why all public schools teach mythology (in classrooms other than science..) but the Bible stories are taboo. What are the rules for whats allowed and whats not. Did my kids really need to know about Zeus and Thor to pass a class in public school?

I think your point is a good one. We learn in school the
theology Greece and Rome were built on, but not the
Judeo-Christian theology the United States was built upon.
We don't learn it in any course in high school.

re: #247 amused

Seems possible to me. That would mean that the grip those religions have would have been surrendered though.

And the fear that atheists have of being included in their grasp, I suppose.

re: #251 angst

Ye, I know. But , I do find gravity an interesting subject. Couldn't resist.

re: #237 Mich-again

Dude! I'm sorry, it was an accident. I took your comment out of context, but it was not intentional. I had not desire to engage in mouth stuffing.

/just spit it out if it tastes awful

re: #256 angst
I have never met a for real atheist.

re: #209 CDR Resser

CDR, as a Catholic boy in the early 70's I went to public schools and twice a week, during class time, It was excused to attend religious class at my parish, where God was everywhere. It was awkward, but in hindsight it worked well. Eventually I went to a religious high school, no problems, religion class was mandatory.
I also cringe at the tone of some commentators here, but have learned Creationism and ID at their core are an IDEA(based on faith), Evolution at its core is an IDEA(based on science). Putting additional terms or refining them are for others. I mostly just lurk and learn also, some belittle that but that's their cross.
/Cheers