LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Turkish Creationists Turned Away By Israeli Academia

Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:00:13 pm PDT

In Israel, Hebrew University canceled a “reconciliation conference” with a group of Turkish Muslim “scholars” when they learned that the Turks planned to include anti-evolution propaganda.

Notice the deceptive tactics, very reminiscent of the work of the Discovery Institute. They don’t mention the name of the Muslim organization, but it sounds very much like the Harun Yahya group, who also collaborate with the US-based Institute for Creation Research.

A group of Muslim religious scholars arriving from Turkey to participate in a reconciliation conference at the Hebrew University claim that the head of the Social Sciences Faculty refused to greenlight the event, calling it off in short notice. Professor Boaz Shamir, Dean of Social Sciences explained his decision citing the lack of proper coordination between the Students’ Union, which was in charge of organizing the event, and the faculty’s secretariat.

However, the correspondence received by Ynet has Prof. Shamir admitting that “we wouldn’t have hosted an event supporting anti-Darwinist propaganda.”

The Turkish lecturers arriving from Istanbul on a joint initiative between the research and scientific foundation they represent and the Interfaith Encounter Association, were planning to speak at the two Jewish-Muslim conferences at the Hebrew University’s campus on Mount Scopus and at Tel Aviv University.

The speakers planned to talk about uniting between the two religions and denouncing Islamic terror – but also against Darwin’s theory about The Origin of Species.

But someone at the university must have not liked the idea of giving the stage to a foundation that is busy spreading Creationism, not to mention the foundation president’s negation of Darwinism in his books. Hence the cancellation notification received by Prof. Shamir a mere few hours before the event. ...

Yehuda Stolov, founder and director of the Interfaith Encounter Association said that “the purpose (of the conference ) was to discuss collaboration between Muslims and Jews for peace and against terror. We had no plans of talking against Darwinism. Unfortunately, the anti-Darwinism made it by mistake into the list of topics on the electronic invitation, which in turn caused the cancellation of the event.”

(Hat tip: Internet Haganah.)

Advertisement

753 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:00:53pm

Well GLORY be!

2 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:02:11pm

Hebrew U. to Muslims "scholars": "Get your Yahyas out."

3 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:02:32pm

re: #2 Occasional Reader

Hebrew U. to Muslims "scholars": "Get your Yahyas out."


gah

4 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:02:38pm

Whatcha wanna bet these Turks had a hidden agenda all along?

5 winston06  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:02:49pm

good on Israelis

6 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:03:44pm

re: #3 Occasional Reader

gah

Yahyas indeed!

7 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:04:18pm

A men, Hebrew University!

8 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:05:40pm

According to conventional Euro wisdom (aka "smug bigotry") creationism and ID are almost exclusively the province of provincial Americans.
In fact, creationism of one kind or another is common in the Islamic world and spreading like wildfire in Europe, most in the former Soviet bloc but the sophisticated and nuanced west is not immune.

(Aside for Rantburg lurkers: Yes, AC and I are the same person)

9 Kulhwch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:06:08pm

I knew the Jews were smarter than the Turks, I just knew it.

}:)     [My first clue?  Yamukas vs. Fezes.  Now who wants to accuse me of denigrating Xians for saying this?]

10 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:06:35pm

re: #7 freedombilly

That would be "amen". Darn over-sized space bar.

11 Eowyn2  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:06:57pm

I'm glad the conference was closed. I just cant get into the whole "lets talk about peace, get money for it, then go home feeling better about ourselves because we talked about peace"

12 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:07:40pm

re: #9 Kulhwch

Yamukas vs. Fezes

My money's on the Japanese mob.

/

13 noshariaincanada  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:08:38pm

What we need now is a creationist mohameddan cartoon jihad.

14 Kulhwch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:09:35pm
re: #12 Occasional Reader
re: #9 Kulhwch

Yamukas vs. Fezes

My money's on the Japanese mob.

/

}:)     [Yakuza me of anything?]

15 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:12:14pm

re: #11 Eowyn2

I'm glad the conference was closed. I just cant get into the whole "lets talk about peace, get money for it, then go home feeling better about ourselves because we talked about peace"

Kind of sounds like any typical big global warming(climate change) conference doesn't it?

16 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:13:30pm

re: #13 noshariaincanada

What we need now is a creationist mohameddan cartoon jihad.


Yep, another example of all the evil, stupid forces in the world starting to coalesce on the same side. This is known as somebody's law but I can't remember whose.

17 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:13:58pm

Well they could go visit Louisiana.

18 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:16:02pm

If they hold the fundamental beliefs of the quran that the Earth is flat and that the only evolving that has ever occurred was that of Christians and Jews from pigs and apes...how many other fundamental beliefs to they hold?

19 BignJames  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:16:39pm

re: #9 Kulhwch

the fez

20 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:16:59pm

Hey all, yes, it is nice to see signs of sanity in our world.

21 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:18:16pm

re: #18 DeathtotheSwiss

If they hold the fundamental beliefs of the quran that the Earth is flat and that the only evolving that has ever occurred was that of Christians and Jews from pigs and apes...how many other fundamental beliefs to do they hold?

Come on spell check, you know what I meant!

22 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:18:19pm

One ding already.

23 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:19:14pm
Unfortunately, the anti-Darwinism made it by mistake into the list of topics on the electronic invitation, which in turn caused the cancellation of the event.”


Heh.

24 eaglewingz08  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:19:47pm

Yep a university is no place for the free exchange of ideas.

25 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:20:22pm

These Islamic Scholars absolutely should have been allowed to denounce Darwin, provided that theygive their view of Creation.
A section should have been devoted to how the Angel Gabriel Gave to Mohammad, the Kaba, the Garden of Eden meteor that was passed down from Abraham.
Oh, & then through in how the thing cannnot be destroyed.
Yeah thats it. Can you just imagine the dialating pupils?

26 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:21:00pm

Oh crap.

27 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:22:12pm

re: #24 eaglewingz08

Yep a university is no place for the free exchange of ideas.

28 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:22:36pm

Apparently, there are people so blinded by their creationist beliefs that they see nothing wrong with the radical Islamic version. Interesting.

29 Render  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:22:36pm

semi-OT:

Aaron, if you see this know that I read about your recent loss. My thoughts and prayers for you and yours.

BEST
FRIENDS,
R

30 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:23:04pm

Israeli ecumenists and Turkish creationists make strange bredfellows.

31 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:23:28pm
32 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:23:52pm
The speakers planned to talk about uniting between the two religions and denouncing Islamic terror – but also against Darwin’s theory about The Origin of Species.


This is why "interfaith dialogue" makes me nervous. These groups share the same goal of undermining secular society. It's sad that so many religious people in the West no longer understand the importance of secularism.

33 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:24:47pm

If you like this post, ding it up, please. It drives the creationists insane when these posts get high ratings.

34 tryptic67[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:25:09pm
35 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:25:42pm

re: #30 sparrowlake

I read an interview with Harun Yahya where he says that he's well received among some religious groups in Israel.

36 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:26:29pm

re: #31 buzzsawmonkey

Does that mean that Eve was the first Meteor Maid?

Lovely Rita was the first meteor maid.

37 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:26:37pm

Not sure if I am going out on a limb here, but I believe in both. Maybe I am a bit odd?

38 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:28:46pm

re: #31 buzzsawmonkey

Does that mean that Eve was the first Meteor Maid?

Oy, such ribbing.

39 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:28:48pm

re: #24 eaglewingz08

Yep a university is no place for the free exchange of ideas.

Sorry, let me try this again.
I take your point, but any deviation from Islam in debate is not widely tolerated in Muslim lands. If a Western scholar were to lecture at a University in,say Saudi Arabia would in all likelihood be tossed out of the country or even have his head removed from his shoulders.
It is fundamentally unfair to not establish an academic quid pro quo.

40 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:29:10pm
"The ID Movement has deliberately chosen not to specify the identity of the Designer. Through science you can demonstrate convincingly that there is a designer, but you can’t go further without invoking theology. Everybody has the right to believe in a Designer according his own theology. What makes the movement effective is its emphasis on solid scientific evidence.
This non-theological nature of the ID Movement also makes it inter-religious. Whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or any other kind of theist, you can identify with the movement. This movement defines the particular paradigm of science we would like to have, and it is science that defines society in the long run.
Muslims should also note the great similarity between the arguments of the Intelligent Design Movement and Islamic sources. Hundreds of verses in the Qur’an call people to examine the natural world and see in it the evidence of God. Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali wrote large volumes about design in animals, plants, and the human body. What Intelligent Design theorists like Behe or Dembski do today is to refine the same argument with the findings of modern science.
In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it."
--Mustafa Aykol
Islam Online


[Link: www.islamonline.net...]

41 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:30:02pm

E#re: #31 buzzsawmonkey

Does that mean that Eve was the first Meteor Maid?

Exactly, uniformed in a burqua.

42 Mathew1977[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:30:16pm
43 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:31:23pm

re: #35 Killgore Trout

An evolving relationship, I'm sure.

44 ContraJihadi  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:31:33pm

It will be interesting to see whether some on the Left will begin to look more indulgently on creationism or offer excuses for it once they hear that Muslim "scholars" are espousing it.

45 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:31:39pm

re: #25 opnion

These Islamic Scholars absolutely should have been allowed to denounce Darwin, provided that theygive their view of Creation.
A section should have been devoted to how the Angel Gabriel Gave to Mohammad, the Kaba, the Garden of Eden meteor that was passed down from Abraham.
Oh, & then through in how the thing cannnot be destroyed.
Yeah thats it. Can you just imagine the dialating pupils?

The Kaba can't be destroyed? I love a challenge.

46 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:31:39pm

Here we go again.

47 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:31:39pm

re: #42 Mathew1977

Fundamentalists who push the ID agenda are being compared to fundamentalists who push the ID agenda.

48 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:32:39pm

re: #46 Charles

re my #26

49 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:32:47pm

re: #47 Josephine

Fundamentalists who push the ID agenda are being compared to fundamentalists who push the ID agenda.

The enemy of Darwin is my friend.

50 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:33:32pm

re: #45 Kosh's Shadow

The Kaba can't be destroyed? I love a challenge.


If the thing was somehow destroyed it would create a very interesting situation.
Would Muslims then in general question Islam?

51 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:33:45pm

re: #42 Mathew1977

Great, now creationists are compared to radical Muslims.

This anti-ID bigotry is starting to wear thin, Charles.

Sal: If the burqa fits, wear it. Anti-science Luddites are anti-science Luddites, no matter what sectarian dogma they attempt to cloak their theocratic bigotry in.

52 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:35:06pm

re: #42 Mathew1977

Great, now creationists are compared to radical Muslims.
This anti-ID bigotry is starting to wear thin, Charles.

Bigotry is such a harsh word - why not just call it honest sentiment.
Charles is a big Ot?

53 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:35:40pm

re: #51 Salamantis

Sal: If the burqa fits, wear it. Anti-science Luddites are anti-science Luddites, no matter what sectarian dogma they attempt to cloak their theocratic bigotry in.

They may hail from different regions and traditions, but they both live on the same flat earth.

54 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:35:53pm

re: #47 Josephine

Fundamentalists who push the ID agenda are being compared to fundamentalists who push the ID agenda.

What does fundamentalism have to do with ID?

One can be a fundamentalist and not believe that there is design in our universe. One can also believe that design is inherent in our universe and not be a fundamentalist at all.

That's like comparing Jerry Falwell with Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, they may both be unsavory in their own way, but they aren't comparable.

55 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:36:45pm

re: #53 Shiplord Kirel

They may hail from different regions and traditions, but they both live on the same flat earth.

Under the same moving sun.

56 wanglese  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:37:06pm

Does it occur to anyone that radical Muslims push the ID agenda because it suits them to undermine western academia?

And IDers are too wrapped up/stupid in their own desires to notice or even be bothered about it?

57 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:37:11pm

re: #49 HelloDare

The enemy of Darwin is my friend.

Famous last words.

There is a huge, expensive public relations campaign being pushed right now to convince Christians and Jews: first, that their religions share core truths with Islam and second, that Islam is the fulfillment of both.

58 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:37:16pm

re: #49 HelloDare
re: #47 Josephine

Fundamentalists who push the ID agenda are being compared to fundamentalists who push the ID agenda.

The enemy of Darwin is my friend.


Considering the great contributions islam has made to science in the past 1400 years (yeah, right), is it the least bit surprising they would want to be in the forefront of a movement which has so little science to rely on?

59 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:37:59pm

And what does Obama have to say about all of this?

60 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:38:05pm

re: #56 wanglese

Does it occur to anyone that radical Muslims push the ID agenda because it suits them to undermine western academia?

And IDers are too wrapped up/stupid in their own desires to notice or even be bothered about it?

Those who believe the theory of ID are now stupid?

Name-calling? That's what passes for debate now?

61 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:38:22pm

re: #58 EC Marm

re: #47 Josephine


Considering the great contributions islam has made to science in the past 1400 years (yeah, right), is it the least bit surprising they would want to be in the forefront of a movement which has so little science to rely on?

Or one that seeks to suppress the very science they have been so unsuccessful in doing?

62 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:38:58pm

If the door is opened - even a tiny crack - to allow religion to be taught in public schools, guess who will come storming through?

Hint:
They threaten to kill you if you disagree with them.

63 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:40:16pm
64 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:40:37pm

re: #54 Mathew1977

What does fundamentalism have to do with ID?

One can be a fundamentalist and not believe that there is design in our universe. One can also believe that design is inherent in our universe and not be a fundamentalist at all.

That's like comparing Jerry Falwell with Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, they may both be unsavory in their own way, but they aren't comparable.

Do you disagree that:

1) Christian fundamentalists adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, which includes the account of the creation of the world and every living thing upon it?

and

2) Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God?

65 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:41:04pm

re: #60 Mathew1977

Those who believe the theory of ID are now stupid?

Name-calling? That's what passes for debate now?

Sal: Lett me hasten to say that stupidity, willful ignorance and intentional self-delusion are three different things, and I only accuse those who, in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary, continue to contend that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that each species was created independently as is, of the last two.

66 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:41:10pm

re: #37 JohnnyReb

No you are not. The two are not mutually exclusive. That is the flaw in the whackoID'ers argument. It shows they are pushing an agenda to gain power, not trying to be faithful to the Word.

There are wacko's on both sides of this argument --and I've yet to find a suitable vocabulary to use. Using the word "Fundamentalist" does a disservice to Fundamentalists. These people have highjacked the term "fundamentalist" to push their own assent to power in order be king dog in their little worlds. Now they want the rest of us to bow down as well --further affirming their greatness.

I believe we can see this behavior on both the religious and non-religious fronts.

67 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:41:49pm

re: #57 Josephine

Famous last words.

There is a huge, expensive public relations campaign being pushed right now to convince Christians and Jews: first, that their religions share core truths with Islam and second, that Islam is the fulfillment of both.

Maybe those people I chased away from my door weren't Jehovah’s Witnesses after all.

68 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:43:07pm

re: #64 Josephine

I don't know about Matthew but I do.

69 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:43:12pm

re: #56 wanglese

Does it occur to anyone that radical Muslims push the ID agenda because it suits them to undermine western academia?

And IDers are too wrapped up/stupid in their own desires to notice or even be bothered about it?

I believe that Islam does indeed push Creationism and or ID as their beliefs.
However, Muslims being Muslims, they are into triumphalism.
They could not possibly tolerate other creationists that are not Muslims. You know the whole Infidel thing. And yes, you are right about the attempt to undermine Western academia.

70 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:43:15pm
71 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:43:20pm

re: #59 DeathtotheSwiss

You left out "Waffle".

72 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:43:37pm

re: #62 Racer X

If the door is opened - even a tiny crack - to allow religion to be taught in public schools, guess who will come storming through?

Hint:
They threaten to kill you if you disagree with them.

Absurd. Religion a set of rules that ostensibly link us to God.

Acknowledging that there is a God is not religious.

ID doesn't even tackle that issue anyway, it just recognizes that some things in nature cannot be explained by millions and millions of years of random mutation.

It would be like looking at a Sony Walkman from 1987 and then looking at an iPod and thinking that the Walkman just became an iPod over time.

73 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:44:01pm
74 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:44:06pm

re: #50 opnion

If the thing was somehow destroyed it would create a very interesting situation.
Would Muslims then in general question Islam?

Good question. Now if it really is an alien mind control device, they certainly would question Islam. But that's the science fiction author in me thinking. Really, they'd come up with something, like saying the rock went to the farthest mosque, and dig up the Temple Mount trying to find one that looks like it.

I'm heading out now; have to read the responses in an hour or so.

75 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:44:14pm

re: #68 theparson

I don't know about Matthew but I do.

So you believe that the world was created one week 6000 years ago by a god who created all creatures independently as is?

76 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:44:30pm

re: #67 HelloDare

Do JW's go door-to-door?

77 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:45:39pm

This debate inevitably turns into religion vs atheism.

That is missing the point entirely. The point is what should be allowed to be taught in public schools?

78 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:46:09pm

re: #57 Josephine

Famous last words.

There is a huge, expensive public relations campaign being pushed right now to convince Christians and Jews: first, that their religions share core truths with Islam and second, that Islam is the fulfillment of both.

please.

79 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:46:32pm

re: #75 Salamantis

I believe the world was created some time past by a loving God in His time frame.

80 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:46:54pm

re: #64 Josephine

Do you disagree that:

1) Christian fundamentalists adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, which includes the account of the creation of the world and every living thing upon it?

Even if they do, which is debatable since Christian fundamentalists are not a monolithic group, they don't want to slaughter anyone who disagrees with them.

and

2) Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God?

They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, transcribed by regular human beings.

81 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:47:01pm

re: #46 Charles

Here we go again.

In part, at least, these threads act as a magnet for victim images. So many take items which you post, and statements which we make in comments, and hammer (twist) them into (phony) spears with which they (metaphorically) stab themselves.

I've come to think that the masochism of victim-hood is a big part of what drives many of them to post here. I mean, why come running gleefully into the lions' den?

82 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:47:34pm

re: #77 Racer X

Exactly.

83 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:48:21pm

re: #77 Racer X

This debate inevitably turns into religion vs atheism.

That is missing the point entirely. The point is what should be allowed to be taught in public schools?

Yeah, because our public schools are doing such a bang-up job.

84 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:48:56pm

re: #72 Mathew1977

Absurd. Religion a set of rules that ostensibly link us to God.

Acknowledging that there is a God is not religious.

Sal: It is not only religious, it is sectarian, since other religions either don't acknowledge a God (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism), or acknowledge more than one (Hinduism, Paganism)

ID doesn't even tackle that issue anyway, it just recognizes that some things in nature cannot be explained by millions and millions of years of random mutation.

Sal: And those unexplainable natural things would be...? Plus, nonrandom natural selection tended to guide things...and the time frame is measured in thousands of millions of years.

It would be like looking at a Sony Walkman from 1987 and then looking at an iPod and thinking that the Walkman just became an iPod over time.

Sal: The old Argument from Design rears its old hoary discredited head, no matter how many times it is refuted.

85 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:49:21pm

re: #74 Kosh's Shadow

Good question. Now if it really is an alien mind control device, they certainly would question Islam. But that's the science fiction author in me thinking. Really, they'd come up with something, like saying the rock went to the farthest mosque, and dig up the Temple Mount trying to find one that looks like it.

I'm heading out now; have to read the responses in an hour or so.

Kosh, I suspect that you a correct. "Islamic Scholars " , would come up with something. The ideology is so ingrained that even a seminal moment like that might not chip it. Buy maybe.........

86 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:49:40pm

re: #77 Racer X

Readin', Writin' and Rithmatic.

/(in my weet dreams)

87 BBev  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:49:54pm

Charles’ you sneaky guy you. You have been building something right before our eyes preparing us for the much bigger picture. Good job.

88 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:49:59pm

Another creationist dinger just turned up.

89 Dahveed  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:50:04pm

Way OT ~

I just saw on C-Span that the House voted on referring articles of impeachment drawn up by that troll Dennis Kucinich to the Judiciary Committee. I realize it's only a procedural vote and it probably won't go anywhere, but these idiots have nothing better to do than that?

90 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:50:21pm

Went to a fundamentalist church one time in my youth.(there
was a lady involved whom I wanted to um er ah get familiar
with) The preacher decided that he needed to save my soul.
Got to preaching right in my face. I told him if he pulled any
snakes out I was going to shoot em. Got invited to leave.
So much for her.

91 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:50:32pm

re: #72 Mathew1977

I disagree.

Where do you draw the line? Which belief gets to be taught? Buddhism? Scientology?

92 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:50:51pm

re: #79 theparson

I believe the world was created some time past by a loving God in His time frame.

And species? Do you believe that humans and great apes were created independently and as is?

93 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:50:53pm

Personally, I think public schools have become so ineffective at teaching basic education that the debate should be about whether we should abolish public schools or not, rather than whether creationism should be taught in public schools. Global warming, socialism, Marxism, history revision, and most other leftist ideologies are now part of the curriculum, whether its discussed openly or not. Frankly, I think creationism is less destructive than the leftist dogma now taught in our schools, but I am 100% against teaching it as theory, just as I am against the indoctrination of students with leftist dogma from kindergarten to PhD.

94 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:51:12pm

re: #84 Salamantis

Sal: The old Argument from Design rears its old hoary discredited head, no matter how many times it is refuted.

I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

95 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:35pm

re: #83 Mathew1977

re: #77 Racer X

This debate inevitably turns into religion vs atheism.

That is missing the point entirely. The point is what should be allowed to be taught in public schools?

Matt: Yeah, because our public schools are doing such a bang-up job.

Sal: So you think the solution to arsenic poisoning is to add strychnine to the mix?

96 Jito463  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:43pm

So - and I'm asking this in all seriousness - what is the point of the upding/downding on the posts by you, if not for people to vote for ones that they agree or disagree with? You get upset when people ding down these posts on evolution, but why have it there if people aren't allowed to use it?

I'm honestly curious about your response, not trying to challenge your authority or anything. It just strikes me as peculiar.

If I'm complete missing the point of those up/down dings, feel free to enlighten me.

97 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:45pm

re: #91 Racer X

I disagree.

Where do you draw the line? Which belief gets to be taught? Buddhism? Scientology?

Scientology is being taught in some schools and even prisons. Go figure. Narconon I believe it's called.

98 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:54pm

re: #92 Salamantis

And species? Do you believe that humans and great apes were created independently and as is?

I do.

99 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:55pm

re: #76 Josephine

Do JW's go door-to-door?

Yep. They have a Church a few blocks away. A friend of mine was ostracized by his family when he was a teen because he left their Church. It tore him up. I gave them an ear full. Told them to never darken my door again. They came back one more time. I told them again in even stronger words never to come back. I'm sure they think I'm a nut. Probably have my address tacked to the wall of their church.

100 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:52:59pm

re: #40 jaunte

[Link: www.islamonline.net...]

Good find. That one is going to have to be a front page post.

101 Pyroskank  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:53:10pm

re: #50 opnion

If the thing was somehow destroyed it would create a very interesting situation.
Would Muslims then in general question Islam?

Why would they go through the soul-wrenching pain of questioning their most cherished beliefs when they can just fly into a murderous rage, raping, mutilating and killing infidels? It's what they're accustomed to, anyway.

Honestly though, if seeing events like those of 9/11, 7/7, and others perpetrated in Islam's name doesn't cause the average Muslim to critically examine his religious beliefs and that of Islam itself, I really don't know what will. I really don't.

102 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:53:15pm

re: #90 Mike in Georgia

I went to a convenience store once and they overcharged me. I still go to convenience stores, I'm just pay more attention to where I go.

103 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:53:15pm

re: #80 Mathew1977

They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, transcribed by regular human beings.

That is a huge difference with Islam . Most of Christianity teaches that the Bible is inspired , and that there are a lot of allegories & metaphors.
Islam on the other hand teaches that the Koran is the literal word of Allah & Allah says kill Christians, Jews & all Infidels. We have a problem here.

104 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:53:23pm

re: #96 Jito463

So - and I'm asking this in all seriousness - what is the point of the upding/downding on the posts by you, if not for people to vote for ones that they agree or disagree with? You get upset when people ding down these posts on evolution, but why have it there if people aren't allowed to use it?

I'm honestly curious about your response, not trying to challenge your authority or anything. It just strikes me as peculiar.

If I'm complete missing the point of those up/down dings, feel free to enlighten me.

Who said you're not allowed to use it?

105 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:53:47pm

re: #92 Salamantis

I do.

106 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:54:09pm

re: #66 ggt


Thanks, for some reason I thought I was alone on here with that thought. I have no doubt in my soul that there is a big dude up there. But, as they say he works in mysterious ways. And there are tons of scientific works that says evolution exists, I agree with both. How does one combine the two? Not for me to say, but my wife and I both agree on this, evolution is real. However, in my opinion the two can be combined and reconciled.

And ID should not be taught in school, period. There are alot of things that are taught in public school that should not be there. Parents beware. Take every textbook that your child(ren) are being taught from. Read them, I did, well except the math books as I suck at math. I found things mostly in history books that were flat out wrong and alot of revisionist history that I had a chat with my son about. I made him do some research and some looking, he hated it then, but he understands now as he is 27. He may not have understood while in school but parents are the biggest influence in a childs life. They listen.

107 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:54:25pm

re: #83 Mathew1977

Yeah, because our public schools are doing such a bang-up job.

Exactly!

[What does Matt win, Bob?]

How about we focus on the basics first - Reading, Writing Arithmetic, etc.

108 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:54:52pm

The problem with Intelligent Design as science, (much less teaching it as science to high school kids) is that there is no there, there:


"The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in
," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said."
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]
109 WitchDoctor  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:55:40pm

I don't live in a flat earth, and I don't deny evolution within limits.

But I'm sorry, to me the "debate is (not) over"

If I believe the Lord created everything including the rules by which we/animals live, then what is the fricking problem? That is also "ID." Now if you want to tell me the earth is 4000 years old, I'll ignore you, but by the same token, if you want to tell me He didn't create the heaven and earth then I will also not credit that statement. I don't how or even if proto-soup developed a spinal cord once upon a time and crawled onto land looking for fun, but that is the real debate, right?

110 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:55:46pm

re: #98 goddessoftheclassroom

I do.

Yes, absolutely. Humans did not evolve from primates.

I believe in evolution insofar as individual species change over time.

But to stretch that to mean we all evolved from the same 'soup' thousands of millions of years ago takes more faith than believing in ID.

111 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:57:16pm

re: #106 JohnnyReb

I think most people believe the two are not mutually exclusive. These threads bring out the extremes --which is a good thing IMHO. The adversarial (sp?) works.

112 Jito463  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:57:24pm

re: #104 Charles

Who said you're not allowed to use it?

You've mentioned before that you didn't like people down-dinging posts on evolution because it you thought it gave visitors a false impression of the site. I assumed (falsely?) that you were correcting those downdings and reverting them. Perhaps I was mistaken. In which case, my bad.

Mind you, I've never personally down or up-dinged any post - by your or anyone else - it just caught my attention.

113 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:57:25pm

re: #94 Mathew1977

I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

re: #84 Salamantis

Sal: The old Argument from Design rears its old hoary discredited head, no matter how many times it is refuted.

Matt2: I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

Matt2: If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

Sal2: Okay, debate then. Support your assertions, though. I wanna see all this empirical evidence you have for the contention that everything in the world was deifically designed. Just disagreeing is not debating; ya gotta be able to ground your disagreement in facts.

114 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:58:32pm

re: #102 theparson

I guess I had it coming because I went for the wrong
reason. I still go to church to but haven't been back to
any fundamentalist ones again

115 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:58:42pm

re: #97 DeathtotheSwiss

Which reminds me...Charles...why no anti-scientology posts? Their mis-teaching of evolution is at least as bad as that of creationists.

Example: We evolved specifically from
clams.

Although, on second thought, I'd rather you not get sued day in and day out for the rest of your life. They also have a bad habit of stalking people who speak out against them.

116 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:59:05pm
117 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 3:59:34pm

re: #112 Jito463

You've mentioned before that you didn't like people down-dinging posts on evolution because it you thought it gave visitors a false impression of the site. I assumed (falsely?) that you were correcting those downdings and reverting them. Perhaps I was mistaken. In which case, my bad.

Mind you, I've never personally down or up-dinged any post - by your or anyone else - it just caught my attention.

No, I have never reversed anyone's ratings.

If I see someone going through and just dinging away as fast as they can, though, and especially if it's someone who has never posted a comment, that person is very likely to lose their account.

118 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:00:18pm

re: #111 ggt


It does lead to some lively debates. However, I would love to see arguments either way leave out the name calling and nonsense arguments.

119 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:02:03pm

re: #113 Salamantis

re: #84 Salamantis

Sal: The old Argument from Design rears its old hoary discredited head, no matter how many times it is refuted.

Matt2: I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

Matt2: If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

Sal2: Okay, debate then. Support your assertions, though. I wanna see all this empirical evidence you have for the contention that everything in the world was deifically designed. Just disagreeing is not debating; ya gotta be able to ground your disagreement in facts.

I would contend that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are just that: theories.

Any 'evidence' we have would fail to convince the other, because we each hold our respective 'evidence' to be conclusive and summarily reject the opposing viewpoint.

You've made that clear. And just sitting there making proclamations of your own superior ideas doesn't make you any more right than anyone else with a competing theory.

120 yochanan  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:02:30pm

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

is slime dead?

121 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:03:04pm

re: #98 goddessoftheclassroom

re: #92 Salamantis

And species? Do you believe that humans and great apes were created independently and as is?

I do.

Sal: then how do you explain this?

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Excerpt:

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.

Sal: This empirical evidence makes it vastly less likely that humans and great apes were created independently than that you could roll boxcars at a casino 1200 times in a row which winning the jackpot on every one-armed bandit in the place with a single pull on each. The statistical chance that there were no common ancestors between humans and apes is vanishingly infinitesimal.

122 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:03:41pm

re: #76 Josephine

Do JW's go door-to-door?

When I was in college at North Texas State, I got interested in a girl who lived with her affluent parents in nearby Plano.
I found out she liked classical music, so I invited her to a symphony orchestra concert. On the appointed evening, I put on a coat and tie (a great rarity for me even now, and especially so then) and drove my old Mustang to the designated address.
Her father, a tall, grizzled Texas father type (gulp!) , opened the door and looked me up and down. "Well, are you a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon?" he asked.
Somewhat flustered, I answered, "Actually I'm Southern Baptist."
"A Baptist! Are y'all knockin' doors now too!?"
The misunderstanding was soon resolved and we had a great time at the concert.

123 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:04:00pm

re: #107 Racer X

Exactly!

[What does Matt win, Bob?]

How about we focus on the basics first - Reading, Writing Arithmetic, etc.

I'd like one of those 'Darwin' car stickers shaped like a fish with legs.

(Of which we've never found, by the way)

124 coquimbojoe  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:04:32pm

re: #94 Mathew1977

I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

Problem is, the theories on ID do not stand up to rigorous debate, the proponents are frauds, science is being ignored and trickery is being used to inject it into the public square. I believe in God, but to push ID the way many are is no help to believers nor anyone's cause.

Its not so much about saying 'we're right' it more about saying your theories ignore scientific fact. If you come to a discussion about science with religiously based ideas, you are not either prepared or honest.

125 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:04:57pm

re: #100 Charles

Good find. That one is going to have to be a front page post.

Truly an unholy alliance.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

126 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:05:20pm

re: #119 Mathew1977

I would contend that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are just that: theories.

Any 'evidence' we have would fail to convince the other, because we each hold our respective 'evidence' to be conclusive and summarily reject the opposing viewpoint.

You've made that clear. And just sitting there making proclamations of your own superior ideas doesn't make you any more right than anyone else with a competing theory.

Wrong. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has stood the test for 150 years, challenged and re-examined and argued over by generations of scientists. In all that time, there have been NO successful challenges to the theory. At this point, evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact.

Look up the terms, please, before you fly off the handle: "scientific theory" and "scientific fact." They have specific meanings.

"Intelligent design," on the other hand, is a political/religious agenda being pushed into schools with the specific intent to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

127 yochanan  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:05:30pm

If one were to say the I.D. CREATIONISM ET AL were a theological issue it would not bother me, I still would not be all that interested but it would not bother me. If you want to teach it start a private school and then you can teach what ever you want.

128 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:06:09pm

re: #123 Mathew1977

I'd like one of those 'Darwin' car stickers shaped like a fish with legs.

(Of which we've never found, by the way)

Completely untrue.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

129 coquimbojoe  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:06:29pm

re: #92 Salamantis

And species? Do you believe that humans and great apes were created independently and as is?

Don't know, don't care. Christ existed. For me that is the most important.

130 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:07:07pm

re: #68 theparson

I don't know about Matthew but I do.

I'm very glad to hear that. Perhaps, as someone suggested on another thread, part of our difficulty is in the terms we are using.

Here's what I mean by fundamentalism:

Pentecostal Assembles of Canada

"Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths" (.pdf)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God by which we understand the whole Bible to be inspired in the sense that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture. Divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the original writings. The whole Bible in the original is, therefore, without error and, as such, is infallible, absolutely supreme and sufficient in authority in all matters of faith and practice.

"The Bible does not simply contain the Word of God, but is, in reality, the complete revelation and very Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. Christian believers today receive spiritual illumination to enable them to understand the Scriptures, but God does not grant new revelations that are
contrary or additional to inspired biblical truth."

Assemblies of God: The Doctrine of Creation

..."The account of creation is intended to be taken as factual and historical. Our understanding of God as Creator is rooted in a revelation that is historical in nature... All the New Testament accepts it this way. The first man Adam, for example, is recognized as a historical person (...).

"Some have contended that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetical and are to be taken as parables. But a comparison of poetical references to Creation (...) shows that the Genesis account is not poetry but prose. It should be noted, however, that poetry in the Bible often describes actual, historical events, so the use of poetry does not make an event a parable or myth.

"It is significant that although creation events are not stated in modern scientific terminology, they are given in unusually acceptable statements, thus providing a solid record for all peoples in all times..."

Assemblies of God: Creationism

..."More specifically, did God employ a gradual process by which the world came into being? Did higher forms of life progress from lower forms of life? The advocates of gradual process are called theistic evolutionists. For them, God’s creative days recorded in Genesis may well have been eons of time.

"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: 'And there was evening, and there was morning.' This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided. Furthermore such a literal view of God’s creation process requires no more faith than theories of science–that our world evolved to its current state by the accidental collision of molecules.

"For Christians, the question of origin is most critical. If mankind has merely evolved from lower forms of life, one cannot possess the special imprint of God’s likeness (...). If all of life is but the result of natural forces as told through various strains of evolution, it then becomes impossible to understand and know God through His creation.

..."From this perspective we believe to remove God as the Source of creation is to erode the basis for moral and ethical values. For this reason a biblical account of creation must remain uncompromised."

131 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:07:39pm

re: #72 Mathew1977

Acknowledging that there is a God is not religious.

Huh? ac·knowl·edge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of
2. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of

Sure sounds religious to me. Unless of course, you already think that everyone is already on the same page as you, and we've all accepted the existence of God as fact.

132 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:08:02pm

re: #78 VegasRick

please.

I don't understand. Would you clarify, please?

133 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:08:26pm

re: #126 Charles

Wrong. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has stood the test for 150 years, challenged and re-examined and argued over by generations of scientists. In all that time, there have been NO successful challenges to the theory. At this point, evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact.

Look up the terms, please, before you fly off the handle: "scientific theory" and "scientific fact." They have specific meanings.

"Intelligent design," on the other hand, is a political/religious agenda being pushed into schools with the specific intent to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Charles, I love LGF.

We simply disagree.

134 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:08:50pm

re: #116 HelloDare

Muslim Adam & Eve.

Some of these are funny as well.

135 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:09:01pm
136 minion[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:09:21pm
137 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:09:35pm

Sometimes you need a good brick wall graphic.

138 nikis-knight  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:09:36pm

re: #33 Charles

If you like this post, ding it up, please. It drives the creationists insane when these posts get high ratings.

I'm not a creationist, and you have convinced me the DI is shady.
Still, I have no interest in driving creationists insane.

139 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:09:42pm

re: #80 Mathew1977

They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, transcribed by regular human beings.

Please see my comment #130.

140 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:10:14pm

Drama queen high dive!

141 RagnardD  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:10:36pm

This just makes me realize all over again that we could very well be headed towards another Dark Ages. One by one, the values of the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment are being rejected by the public. Sheer inertia may be the biggest force standing between us and some sort of murderous dictatorship.

And I think if the US goes, so will the rest of the world.

The irony is that the Nazis and the Soviets, and now the islamists, could not do it by force. We are doing it to ourselves.

142 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:11:07pm

re: #132 Josephine

I don't understand. Would you clarify, please?

I thought your post was a little over the top.

143 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:11:58pm

re: #136 minion

By all means, Charles, give this man what he wants.

144 BignJames  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:13pm

re: #115 DeathtotheSwiss

Clams?

145 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:31pm

re: #139 Josephine

Please see my comment #130.

I did 'see' it.

I saw that it looks like a Herman Melville novel and scanned over it.

146 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:36pm

re: #134 Racer X

Some of these are funny as well.


Rock, Paper, Scissors.

147 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:41pm

re: #121 Salamantis

heh

With a great deal of respect (and butting in), it strikes me that you're applying specific scientific arguments against specific religious belief. That's apples and oranges, kind of the flip side of what we're arguing with the ID'ers about.

/hm ... just sayin'

148 Mike in Georgia  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:42pm

re: #143 Lizard by the Bay

It got it.

149 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:12:42pm

re: #135 buzzsawmonkey

I will have to disagree with you.
I think that the public school system was once the glory of this country, and it needs not to be jettisoned, but to be recaptured from the leftist dogma that has all but destroyed it.
We need a school system that does teach basic math, English (and English/American literature), science, history and civics to everyone for America to remain a cohesive nation.

That is IMO exactly correct and is exactly what religious parochialists cannot tolerate.

150 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:13:56pm

What gets me so mad is that the God these people want me to believe in is one who does things for no reason, who creates a world in which life is a constant and painful struggle for the mind-boggingly vast majority of its species. The same people who tote the cultivated modern banana as the atheist's worst nightmare ignore the sheer harshness of a world in which the majority of off-spring of most species do no survive.

The God they expect me to believe in, and don't for one second believe that they aren't basing all their evidence on their religion, makes 50 copies of the same fish all with mild to extreme variations, puts the vast majority of the planet in a place where it'd take over 10,000 years for our species to be technologically advanced to visit (see the deep sea) and instead of making himself seen and heard in a way that not even the staunchest of atheists could ignore every ten to fifty years or so makes a few appearances and then leaves the human race he so loves in the throes of chaos.

I could never love, respect or submit to that kind of God.

151 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:14:01pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

The speakers planned to talk about uniting between the two religions and denouncing Islamic terror – but also against Darwin’s theory about The Origin of Species.

This is why "interfaith dialogue" makes me nervous. These groups share the same goal of undermining secular society. It's sad that so many religious people in the West no longer understand the importance of secularism.

Well, I think interfaith diaglogue (in addition to other things) is important, particularly for the Israelis and Arabs, if they wish to live in peace.

The thing that got me about that sentence, is just when there is some hope of dialogue, they have to put a fly in the ointment and pull in Darwin.

Israel is the Jewish state which means it's run under Jewish law. Yes, there are plenty of secular Jews in Israel, but most abide by Jewish law even in instances when they don't have to. Of course, the Arabs don't have to. There's always the Arab quarter (open on Friday night, etc).

The subject of interfaith dialogue has a different impact, purpose, necessity in Israel than in the West and I think you have to keep that in mind. (I think it's important here, too.)

On the other hand, Israel values science a GREAT deal. I wager that the vast majority of Jews, both secular and religious, believe in Genesis even if they do not take certain parts literally (I don't like to call it "creationism" in this regard).

But coupled with that, they also produce a high majority of academics who work in science, technology and medicine. (Pardon my wiki, there are better sources.) So I simply could not see them working against any science, IN PARTICULAR evolution. Do you know how many active digs there are in Israel? What they are discovering daily?

Science and religion manage to co-exist very well in Israel.

152 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:14:02pm

re: #119 Mathew1977

re: #113 Salamantis

re: #84 Salamantis

Sal: The old Argument from Design rears its old hoary discredited head, no matter how many times it is refuted.

Matt2: I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

Matt2: If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

Sal2: Okay, debate then. Support your assertions, though. I wanna see all this empirical evidence you have for the contention that everything in the world was deifically designed. Just disagreeing is not debating; ya gotta be able to ground your disagreement in facts.

Matt: I would contend that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are just that: theories.

Sal3: This is to completely, and perhaps willfully, considering how many times it has been explained here, misconstrue the scientific definition of theory, which is a framework that is su[pported by and makes sense of vast amounts of evidence form many different scientific disciplines. ID, on the other hand, is supported by no evidence whatsoever; it is religion, not science.

Matt: Any 'evidence' we have would fail to convince the other, because we each hold our respective 'evidence' to be conclusive and summarily reject the opposing viewpoint.

Sal: Your scare quotes do not fly. When any properly equpped lab in the nation can take samples of your blood and that of a chimpanzee and find the same thousands of instances of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in the identical locations in both genomes, it is irrefutable empirical evidence - period. And you have not a single bit of evidence to offer in support of your sectarian religious contingent. Hot a whit, dollop, or skosh.

Matt: You've made that clear. And just sitting there making proclamations of your own superior ideas doesn't make you any more right than anyone else with a competing theory.

Sal: But the empirical evidence, which I am quite happy to site and you studiously dismiss or ignore, does. And it also disqualifies ID as a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.

153 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:14:21pm

re: #118 JohnnyReb

I'd like to see some definintions we can all agree on. For instance, I see "Darwinism" alot. Which to me would be: an agreement with the Theory of Evolution. But it seems to be used as a substitute for some sort of "radical athiesm".

So, If I say I agree with "Darwinism" some people will interpret that as I don't believe in a higher-power of any persuasion.

The term "fundamentalist" has also caused problems. Thru the Lizards, I've learned that the term does not autmatically mean "polygamy, child marriage, subjugation of women, etc".

So, I substitute "whacko" for the whackos.

154 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:14:38pm

re: #144 BignJames

Your picture has been moved or deleted. That was fast.

155 nikis-knight  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:14:45pm

re: #64 Josephine

Do you disagree that:

1) Christian fundamentalists adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, which includes the account of the creation of the world and every living thing upon it?

and

2) Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God?

Only the second part is definitionally true. No one believes dragons are going to fighting in the apocalypse, for instance. Now, many fundamentalist Christians will believe Genesis is intended to be a literal account, but they don't rule out the reading of some of it metaphysically.

156 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:16:26pm

re: #151 marjoriemoon

If these were Palestinian creationists...maybe.

157 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:16:28pm

re: #146 HelloDare

Einstein: God would not play rock, paper, scissors dice with the universe.

158 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:16:58pm

re: #100 Charles

Good find. That one is going to have to be a front page post.

I read the whole article. As committed Christians we do have in common with Muslims, our concern for some aspects of a secular community, not just dismissive of Christian values, but openly hostile. However, I don't see how any ID advocate will be able to prove via science that there is a "Who" behind the "What." No matter how many Muslims and Christians are working together to say it is so, faith is not the type of knowledge taught in secular schools.

It could make a great New Yorker cover, however.

159 sparrowlake  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:17:01pm

re: #155 nikis-knight

Only the second part is definitionally true. No one believes dragons are going to fighting in the apocalypse, for instance. Now, many fundamentalist Christians will believe Genesis is intended to be a literal account, but they don't rule out the reading of some of it metaphysically.

Haven't you ever had a day that felt like a million years?

160 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:17:19pm

re: #157 HelloDare

Einstein: God would not play rock, paper, scissors dice with the universe.

161 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:17:29pm

re: #155 nikis-knight

Only the second part is definitionally true. No one believes dragons are going to fighting in the apocalypse, for instance. Now, many fundamentalist Christians will believe Genesis is intended to be a literal account, but they don't rule out the reading of some of it metaphysically.

I agree with you nikis, but the two questions are smoke screens anyway and have no bearing on the evolution/ID debate.

162 yochanan  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:17:36pm

if i want my kids to learn Torah I don't send them to public schools. the same thing should apply to the whole I.D. CREATIONIST belief. This theologically based beliefs right now i have more important issures to worry about IRANIAN FASCISTS GETTING NUKES, AMERICAN DEFEAT IN IRAQ OR HEZBALLAH/HAMAS ATTACKS ON ISRAEL. i really wish I.D, was all we have to worry about.

163 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:17:48pm

re: #135 buzzsawmonkey

I will have to disagree with you.

I think that the public school system was once the glory of this country, and it needs not to be jettisoned, but to be recaptured from the leftist dogma that has all but destroyed it.

We need a school system that does teach basic math, English (and English/American literature), science, history and civics to everyone for America to remain a cohesive nation.


But if you teach all of those subjects (and art, too, I hope) some children may be left behind! We can't have one child left behind!

164 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:18:20pm

re: #151 marjoriemoon

Science and religion manage to co-exist very well in Israel.


Yes science is alive and well in Israel. I think the fact they pulled the plug on this conference is a sign that the Israelis have a lot of respect for science and Reason. However, there are groups in America and Europe that see secular society as evil and they also see Islam as their partner in reversing the Enlightenment.

165 BignJames  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:18:20pm

re: #154 DeathtotheSwiss

Hmmm still works for me....I posted a link yesterday that only I could see....hmmmm

166 kansas  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:18:45pm

How long did it take Mohammed to create the earth?

167 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:18:49pm
168 Daniel Dravot  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:19:06pm

There is no "Istanbul." There is only occupied Constantinople.

169 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:19:50pm

re: #165 BignJames

Perhaps your computer still has the image so when it opens up the address your computer and not the server is the one that offers the image. Or my computer could be messed up.

Hey everybody, has Charles ever posted about scientology?

170 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:20:32pm

Certainties: Death, Taxes, and ID threads.

Yeeha!

171 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:22:58pm

re: #153 ggt

Maybe we need to make some new terms? Something different. No idea what they are, but it appears that only you and I are on the same page here. So I guess whatever we come up with would work for both of us. An Army of two, but I am retired Navy so maybe that wont work either.

172 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:23:02pm

re: #156 DeathtotheSwiss

If these were Palestinian creationists...maybe.

Well I'm not sure I understand your meaning, but it wouldn't matter who it is.

"Unfortunately, the anti-Darwinism made it by mistake into the list of topics on the electronic invitation, which in turn caused the cancellation of the event.”

My gut feeling is Israel will never tolerate such a thing. It's important to see how and where it's inflitrating and I'm interested in the post for sure. But science, techonology and medicine are ingrained in the culture there. Darwin ain't going anywhere.

173 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:23:26pm

re: #147 pre-Boomer Marine brat

heh

With a great deal of respect (and butting in), it strikes me that you're applying specific scientific arguments against specific religious belief. That's apples and oranges, kind of the flip side of what we're arguing with the ID'ers about.

/hm ... just sayin'

Sal: I'm just sayin' that if they're gonna step into science's playground, they have to play by science's rules. And, since the age of the earth and the common ancestry of humans and great apes are empirically checkable, and the tests have come out as they have, (4.5 billion year old earth, common ancestors for humans and great apes), these are no longer matters belonging to religious faith or belief as they did in times past; they have moved entirely within the purview of the realm of scientific knowledge.

174 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:23:43pm

re: #170 DistantThunder

Certainties: Death, Taxes, and ID threads.

Yeeha!

You forgot "they always screw up your order in the drive thru"

175 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:24:18pm

re: #169 DeathtotheSwiss

Hey everybody, has Charles ever posted about scientology?


Not that I'm aware of. However even I give the Scientologists some slack because they are so vilified and they're an easy target. Sure they're beliefs are goofy and their church is a money making racket but the same can be said about a lot of other religions too. I don't see a real need to single them out.

176 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:26:51pm
177 coquimbojoe  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:26:52pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Not that I'm aware of. However even I give the Scientologists some slack because they are so vilified and they're an easy target. Sure they're beliefs are goofy and their church is a money making racket but the same can be said about a lot of other religions too. I don't see a real need to single them out.

Also, Its Charles' site, he can pick the fights he wants.

178 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:27:00pm

re: #171 JohnnyReb

LOL!

179 freetoken  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:27:17pm

re: #72 Mathew1977


ID doesn't even tackle that issue anyway, it just recognizes that some things in nature cannot be explained by millions and millions of years of random mutation.

There is a much more active element of religion in the ID movement than you are admitting. I posted a link a few days ago to a CBC interview of Dembski in which he is effusively ranting about the need to work with Islam.

180 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:27:29pm

re: #173 Salamantis

Sal: I'm just sayin' that if they're gonna step into science's playground, they have to play by science's rules. And, since the age of the earth and the common ancestry of humans and great apes are empirically checkable, and the tests have come out as they have, (4.5 billion year old earth, common ancestors for humans and great apes), these are no longer matters belonging to religious faith or belief as they did in times past; they have moved entirely within the purview of the realm of scientific knowledge.

I disagree. You didn't ask me if I believed in evolution or ID; you asked me whether I believed that Man was created distinctly from apes, and I do. I do believe in evolution, but I believe the God created the heavens and the earth, and I don't think what little evidence there is and man's interpretation of that has disproven my faith.

181 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:27:51pm

re: #171 JohnnyReb

and Thanks for serving!

182 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:28:17pm

re: #131 Lizard by the Bay

Huh? ac·knowl·edge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of
2. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of

Sure sounds religious to me. Unless of course, you already think that everyone is already on the same page as you, and we've all accepted the existence of God as fact.

So everyone who believes there is a God is religious?

There are probably quite a few people reading this who would disagree.

183 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:28:18pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Not that I'm aware of. However even I give the Scientologists some slack because they are so vilified and they're an easy target. Sure they're beliefs are goofy and their church is a money making racket but the same can be said about a lot of other religions too. I don't see a real need to single them out.

If that's all they were (a group of people with funny ideas), I'd agree with you. But they share something in common with Muslims: they actively target and attempt to silence and/or destroy their critics. They don't do it with bombs, but with lawyers, and they are positively predatory towards anyone that dares to raise any questions about their cultist beliefs or activities.

That and the fact that they use their celebrity spokespersons to help them bilk millions and millions out of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable non-celebrity suckers every year.

184 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:28:32pm

re: #142 VegasRick

I thought your post was a little over the top.

Thanks. Which part? The "famous last words"?

I didn't mean it literally. I didn't mean that Christians who attended a creationist conference with Muslims would suddenly drop dead.

/Channeling Zoolander.

185 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:30:15pm

re: #181 ggt

Your most welcome. But you have to come up with terms acceptable to all. And we have to run them past the US and UN governments too.

186 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:30:23pm

re: #72 Mathew1977

Absurd. Religion a set of rules that ostensibly link us to God.

Acknowledging that there is a God is not religious.

ID doesn't even tackle that issue anyway, it just recognizes that some things in nature cannot be explained by millions and millions of years of random mutation.

It would be like looking at a Sony Walkman from 1987 and then looking at an iPod and thinking that the Walkman just became an iPod over time.

If you think evolution is so dumb and so obviously wrong that even a 5-year old can see it, why do you think the vast majority of scientists, particularly biologists, accept it? I mean, do you really think they are a bunch of drooling, nose-picking idiots?

If not, what do you think? Do you think they're so blinded by their commitment to naturalism that they just refuse to see these glaring, gaping flaws in the theory of evolution that are so readily apparent to YOU?

Or perhaps you think it's something even more sinister...all those scientists and particularly the biologists HATE God and his no-fun rules, and are involved in a conspiracy to enable us all to live guilt free hedonistic existences, and are probably in thrall to the EVIL ONE who is behind this whole evolution scam in the first place!

No, the vast majority of scientists, especially biologists, accept evolution because it helps to explain what they observe every day of their working lives. Furthermore, evolution can be used to make predictions, and these predictions have been borne out in the fossil record, in DNA studies, and in real-time observations. Scientists accept evolution because it works, because it yields real-world RESULTS.

By contrast, ID research has proven to be a dead end. How much actual RESEARCH do the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research do? What have they accomplished? How are their findings applicable in the real world?

By the way, many scientists today argue that mutation and natural selection are not the ONLY mechanisms of evolution. But in suggesting that some things in nature really may not be explainable through millions of years of random mutation AND NATURAL SELECTION (which is not random), they don't automatically leap to the conclusion "Goddidit" like IDers do. Rather, they offer proposals grounded in nature that are subject to observation, testing, experimentation.

Even so, mutation and natural selection is clearly a powerful driver of evolutionary change. Computer simulations have shown beyond doubt that small changes to an organism, when acted upon by natural forces, can result in large changes on the species level over time.

187 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:30:31pm

re: #164 Killgore Trout

Yes science is alive and well in Israel. I think the fact they pulled the plug on this conference is a sign that the Israelis have a lot of respect for science and Reason. However, there are groups in America and Europe that see secular society as evil and they also see Islam as their partner in reversing the Enlightenment.

Right. Well, I'm somewhat surprised at what seems to be surge in this stuff and it's all over the world! What I find really shocking, almost laughable is that it's pointed at Israel. A place that KNOWS Genesis very well and science just as well!

188 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:30:38pm

re: #182 Mathew1977

So everyone who believes there is a God is religious?

There are probably quite a few people reading this who would disagree.

You're splitting hairs. It is not the "religious" (as in "relating to organized religion") aspects of ID that are the problem, it's the lack of anything scientific. Even if we accept the claim that ID is "spiritual" rather than religious, you still haven't given me one good reason why it has any place in a science class.

189 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:31:48pm

re: #155 nikis-knight

Only the second part is definitionally true. No one believes dragons are going to fighting in the apocalypse, for instance. Now, many fundamentalist Christians will believe Genesis is intended to be a literal account, but they don't rule out the reading of some of it metaphysically.

The literal reading includes the creation account and the story of Adam and Eve.

190 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:31:52pm

re: #183 Lizard by the Bay

But they share something in common with Muslims: they actively target and attempt to silence and/or destroy their critics. They don't do it with bombs, but with lawyers, and they are positively predatory towards anyone that dares to raise any questions about their cultist beliefs or activities.


The Mormons do the same thing. Same with the Catholic League. Sure the Scientologists are extra whacky but so is Benny Hinn. In terms of damage to society I'd say they do about as much damage as the Televangelists.

191 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:31:56pm

Josephine, just curious, how did you select a quote from the AG website as a definition of fundamental beliefs?

192 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:33:31pm

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey
I was hoping for your thoughts on "No Child Left Behind" and the public school response. The de-emphasis of certain topics in particular. I was compared to a Nazi at one web site because of my belief in proximal zone of development. You're free to pass, of course, but I do enjoy your ability to write with such wit and clarity.

193 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:33:31pm

re: #173 Salamantis

Sal: I'm just sayin' that if they're gonna step into science's playground, they have to play by science's rules. And, since the age of the earth and the common ancestry of humans and great apes are empirically checkable, and the tests have come out as they have, (4.5 billion year old earth, common ancestors for humans and great apes), these are no longer matters belonging to religious faith or belief as they did in times past; they have moved entirely within the purview of the realm of scientific knowledge.

I disagree. You didn't ask me if I believed in evolution or ID; you asked me whether I believed that Man was created distinctly from apes, and I do. I do believe in evolution, but I believe the God created the heavens and the earth, and I don't think what little evidence there is and man's interpretation of that has disproven my faith.

Sal2: Either you did not read my post#121, or you do not truly comprehend the statistical power of the empirical evidence in our genes, and its conclusive consequences and ramifications. Quite simply, the chance that humans and great apes DID NOT diverge from common ancestors is, statistically speaking, vanishingly small. You may choose to dismiss or ignore this evidence for your own reasons, but it is irrefutable.

194 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:34:34pm

re: #188 Lizard by the Bay

You're splitting hairs. It is not the "religious" (as in "relating to organized religion") aspects of ID that are the problem, it's the lack of anything scientific. Even if we accept the claim that ID is "spiritual" rather than religious, you still haven't given me one good reason why it has any place in a science class.

Keep hewing down those straw men.

I guess you get to define ID as you see fit.

By my definition, it simply is the theory that instead of man arriving after random mutation over thousands of millions of years, a being greater than ourselves designed the universe and everything in it.

Did evolution take place within this design? Sure, I'll accept that.

195 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:34:55pm

Post #193 was a reply to post#180

196 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:35:01pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Not that I'm aware of. However even I give the Scientologists some slack because they are so vilified and they're an easy target. Sure they're beliefs are goofy and their church is a money making racket but the same can be said about a lot of other religions too. I don't see a real need to single them out.

Scientology is not a religion. It is a cult. Plain and simple. Just because wealthy people (Hollywood types yet) have tried to give it some respectability... using Hollywood and Respectability in the same sentence is a rather bizarre event... doesn't mean it's a religion. It is not.

197 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:35:26pm

re: #173 Salamantis

I understand what you're saying. I believe in the facts you state.

I guess I'm pursuing a (tenuous) understanding of (personal, deep-felt) religion (ie, not dogma) as something which can exist separately from ... "The World". Ahh, t' heck with it. It's too vague. Too philosophical.

198 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:35:42pm

re: #101 Pyroskank

Honestly though, if seeing events like those of 9/11, 7/7, and others perpetrated in Islam's name doesn't cause the average Muslim to critically examine his religious beliefs and that of Islam itself, I really don't know what will. I really don't.

Haven't you heard? Joos did all that stuff. No, really, Ahmed told me so at Friday prayers.

199 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:36:22pm

re: #182 Mathew1977

re: #131 Lizard by the Bay

Huh? ac·knowl·edge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of
2. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of

Sure sounds religious to me. Unless of course, you already think that everyone is already on the same page as you, and we've all accepted the existence of God as fact.

So everyone who believes there is a God is religious?

There are probably quite a few people reading this who would disagree.

Sal: They might disagree, but if they did disagree, they would be wrong, by dictionary definition.

200 ggt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:36:46pm

re: #185 JohnnyReb

"Whacko" --it's my term and the UN can't have it.

I gotta go do my part of the Mommy Limo Service.

Have a great evening all!

201 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:37:50pm

re: #199 Salamantis

re: #131 Lizard by the Bay

Huh? ac·knowl·edge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of
2. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of

Sure sounds religious to me. Unless of course, you already think that everyone is already on the same page as you, and we've all accepted the existence of God as fact.

So everyone who believes there is a God is religious?

There are probably quite a few people reading this who would disagree.

Sal: They might disagree, but if they did disagree, they would be wrong, by dictionary definition.

Oh, right, right. I forgot. Those who disagree with Sal are wrong.

202 theparson  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:39:24pm

BBL

203 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:39:59pm

re: #72 Mathew1977

Religion a set of rules that ostensibly link us to God.

Hoo boy! I'm glad I missed that earlier. An ID thread is no place to respond to that.

/I will respectfully agree to disagree

204 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:40:53pm
There is grandeur is this view of life, with it's several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

205 perdiem  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:41:13pm

Anything that weakens fanatical belief in any religion is verboten. The real fact that all of the founders of the the three monotheistic religions were atheists is blasphemous.

Moses lost in the desert. with his followers building a golden idol, was asked by his half brother Aaron how was he going to compete. Moses said,"Just you wait, I'm going to talk to God"

When he went to Mt.Sinai they didn't buy it,until he said God want you to have a six day work week, for you and your draft animals. To this day Jews walk to temple ,giving their Buicks a day of rest.

How do I know? I was there.

/the theory of unintended consequences

206 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:41:32pm

re: #115 DeathtotheSwiss

Which reminds me...Charles...why no anti-scientology posts? Their mis-teaching of evolution is at least as bad as that of creationists.

Example: We evolved specifically from
clams.

Although, on second thought, I'd rather you not get sued day in and day out for the rest of your life. They also have a bad habit of stalking people who speak out against them.

Sorry I probably should have directed my above comment (196) here rather than at Killgore :) Kinda hard to keep track.

What school is teaching scientology?

207 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:42:43pm

re: #203 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hoo boy! I'm glad I missed that earlier. An ID thread is no place to respond to that.

/I will respectfully agree to disagree

Really? Religion isn't a man-made set of rules intended to ostensibly bring us closer to God? I don't think that is controversial at all. I will respectfully agree to disagree with your agreeably disagreeing with me.

208 kansas  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:42:47pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

You apparently have never made the mistake of getting involved with them.

209 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:43:11pm

re: #194 Mathew1977

Keep hewing down those straw men.

I guess you get to define ID as you see fit.

By my definition, it simply is the theory belief, taken entirely on faith and without one shred of evidence, that instead of man arriving after random mutation over thousands of millions of years, a being greater than ourselves designed the universe and everything in it.

Did evolution take place within this design? Sure, I'll accept that.

What "strawman"? Do you even know what that means? Also, I didn't try to define ID, so I'm at a loss when you talk about "my definition". As for your "definition" of ID; guess what? It's the same as everyone's definition of ID (except that I have improved upon it above by making it more honest). You think I don't understand you. I understand you perfectly. I also think you're wrong. You're just going to have to find a way to accept that.

Do you/can you understand that the minute you invoke "a being greater than ourselves", you have crossed into theology, and have completely left the realm of science behind?

210 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:43:13pm

re: #161 Mathew1977

I agree with you nikis, but the two questions are smoke screens anyway and have no bearing on the evolution/ID debate.

No, they aren't.

In your #42 (which has been deleted), you complained that fundamentalist Christians were being compared to fundamentalist Muslims (or terrorists, I can't remember exactly). You later said it was like comparing Pat Robertson to Osama bin Laden.

I demonstrated that there is a large number of fundamentalist Christians (Pentecostals) who interpret the Bible literally and consider it to be the inerrant, perfect Word of God (much as many Muslims view the Koran). The part they interpret literally includes the creation story and the story of the Fall (original sin).

I quoted in #130, as my sources, documents by the Assemblies of God (U.S.A.) and Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. But you didn't read it all because it was too long.

If fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism and support I.D., then they are, in that respect, on a par with fundamentalist Muslims who believe in creationism and support I.D.

211 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:43:26pm

re: #194 Mathew1977

re: #188 Lizard by the Bay

You're splitting hairs. It is not the "religious" (as in "relating to organized religion") aspects of ID that are the problem, it's the lack of anything scientific. Even if we accept the claim that ID is "spiritual" rather than religious, you still haven't given me one good reason why it has any place in a science class.

Keep hewing down those straw men.

I guess you get to define ID as you see fit.

By my definition, it simply is the theory that instead of man arriving after random mutation over thousands of millions of years, a being greater than ourselves designed the universe and everything in it.

Did evolution take place within this design? Sure, I'll accept that.

Sal: And the evolution that took place is the evolution, over the course of a couple of BILLION (not million) years, from a tiny group of primitive cells to the amazing diversity of speciation present on the earth today, including us.

212 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:43:41pm

re: #205 perdiem

Anything that weakens fanatical belief in any religion is verboten. The real fact that all of the founders of the the three monotheistic religions were atheists is blasphemous.

Moses lost in the desert. with his followers building a golden idol, was asked by his half brother Aaron how was he going to compete. Moses said,"Just you wait, I'm going to talk to God"

When he went to Mt.Sinai they didn't buy it,until he said God want you to have a six day work week, for you and your draft animals. To this day Jews walk to temple ,giving their Buicks a day of rest.

How do I know? I was there.

/the theory of unintended consequences

That was pretty messed up, dude.

213 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:43:45pm

re: #191 theparson

Josephine, just curious, how did you select a quote from the AG website as a definition of fundamental beliefs?

Are Pentecostals not fundamentalist Christians?

214 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:44:47pm

re: #193 Salamantis

Sal, sometimes your posts are hard to follow. May I make a suggestion?

Click "quote" -

re: #193 Salamantis

re: #173 Salamantis
You didn't ask me if I believed in evolution or ID;

and delete text you are not specifically replying to, then post your response.

Or you can click "reply", then copy and paste, then highlight the text and click the " icon near the text box.

re: #193 Salamantis

You may choose to dismiss or ignore this evidence for your own reasons, but it is irrefutable.

Just offering some advice.

215 BignJames  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:45:14pm

re: #213 Josephine

Holy rollers? yes.

216 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:45:33pm

re: #201 Mathew1977

re: #199 Salamantis

re: #131 Lizard by the Bay

Huh? ac·knowl·edge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of
2. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of

Sure sounds religious to me. Unless of course, you already think that everyone is already on the same page as you, and we've all accepted the existence of God as fact.

So everyone who believes there is a God is religious?

There are probably quite a few people reading this who would disagree.

Sal: They might disagree, but if they did disagree, they would be wrong, by dictionary definition.

Oh, right, right. I forgot. Those who disagree with Sal are wrong.

Sal2: You're allowed to have your own dictionary definitions as soon as you can persuade the dictionaries to accept them.

217 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:47:09pm
218 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:47:16pm

re: #210 Josephine

No, they aren't.

In your #42 (which has been deleted), you complained that fundamentalist Christians were being compared to fundamentalist Muslims (or terrorists, I can't remember exactly). You later said it was like comparing Pat Robertson to Osama bin Laden.

I demonstrated that there is a large number of fundamentalist Christians (Pentecostals) who interpret the Bible literally and consider it to be the inerrant, perfect Word of God (much as many Muslims view the Koran). The part they interpret literally includes the creation story and the story of the Fall (original sin).

I quoted in #130, as my sources, documents by the Assemblies of God (U.S.A.) and Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. But you didn't read it all because it was too long.

If fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism and support I.D., then they are, in that respect, on a par with fundamentalist Muslims who believe in creationism and support I.D.

So with that logic, are you voting for obambi because he believes in evolution?

219 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:47:18pm

re: #102 theparson

I went to a convenience store once and they overcharged me. I still go to convenience stores, I'm just pay more attention to where I go.

Be sure to count your change as well.

/I got caught slippin' a couple times.

220 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:48:29pm

re: #218 VegasRick

So with that logic, are you voting for obambi because he believes in evolution?

I don't understand your logic.

What does one have to do with the other?

221 yochanan  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:48:47pm

re: #204 DistantThunder

can you provide a link to the quote?

222 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:49:20pm

Salamantis,

I like what you have to say, but I also agree with Racer X. Please use the quote feature. Or just quote only the post you're replying to. Reposting an entire thread discussion in every post with no way to discern who wrote what makes your posts very difficult to read.

223 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:49:47pm
224 Render  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:49:55pm

Hmmm...

Is Michael Medved a "Senior Fellow" of the DI or not?

I've seen this article numerous times now, and Medved certainly seems to agree with the DI.

But neither the DI's own website, nor the Wiki about the DI have been updated to reflect this.

CURIOUS,
R

225 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:50:06pm

re: #220 Josephine

I don't understand your logic.

What does one have to do with the other?

You are saying that because I may or may not share one belief with a radical cult we are the same.

226 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:51:26pm

re: #207 Mathew1977

re: #203 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hoo boy! I'm glad I missed that earlier. An ID thread is no place to respond to that.

/I will respectfully agree to disagree

Really? Religion isn't a man-made set of rules intended to ostensibly bring us closer to God? I don't think that is controversial at all. I will respectfully agree to disagree with your agreeably disagreeing with me.

Sal: Different religions possess some ethics in common and differ on others. This is due to the fact that they appropriated their ethical systems from religions that came before, and from the surrounding culture, and that they arose in different geographical areas, populated by different people, with different sociocultural traditions. But, beneath all the standing on shoulders that newer religions did with older ones, the original source of ethics was the mores and folkways of human society.

227 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:51:26pm

re: #209 Lizard by the Bay

What "strawman"? Do you even know what that means? Also, I didn't try to define ID, so I'm at a loss when you talk about "my definition". As for your "definition" of ID; guess what? It's the same as everyone's definition of ID (except that I have improved upon it above by making it more honest). You think I don't understand you. I understand you perfectly. I also think you're wrong. You're just going to have to find a way to accept that.

Do you/can you understand that the minute you invoke "a being greater than ourselves", you have crossed into theology, and have completely left the realm of science behind?

Where to start, where to start...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

You claim that I see ID as 'spiritual,' which I never did. As far as what place it has in a science class, I thought opposing ideas where to be exposed and debated. Our students are only getting one theory as it stands.

(Not to mention a fair portion of them can barely read or point to their own state on a map)

It's cute how you hacked up my statement as you saw fit, but no, I don't have to accept your idea.

228 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:51:37pm

re: #116 HelloDare

Muslim Adam & Eve.

I declare that to be fauxtography, I can still see the female's ankles.
/

229 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:51:43pm

re: #214 Racer X

And he has so many good things to say!

Sal, to do it another way, after you paste in someone else's text, go back and highlight the text. Then in the upper right corner, click the " button (quote button) and it will block quote their text. Then type outside the code that says "blockquote". Will make it much easier to read your text.

230 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:52:11pm

re: #207 Mathew1977

Really? Religion isn't a man-made set of rules intended to ostensibly bring us closer to God? I don't think that is controversial at all. I will respectfully agree to disagree with your agreeably disagreeing with me.

Just an explanation, then we'll agree to ... et cetera.

My own personal faith (within Christianity) is absolutely NOT "a man-made set of rules". It is my faith precisely because I have been brought closer to God. The italicized words were carefully chosen. Nothing beyond their grammatical meaning should be assumed.

If, by chance, you want to know more, studying Soren Kierkegaard would be the first place to look.

Anyway, I've got to get supper. Have a great evening.

231 fsjonesy  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:52:53pm

Whoo, another ID thread!

232 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:53:18pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout

The Mormons do the same thing. Same with the Catholic League. Sure the Scientologists are extra whacky but so is Benny Hinn. In terms of damage to society I'd say they do about as much damage as the Televangelists.

I respectfully disagree that the Mormons try to destroy our critics. If that were true, then there wouldn't be legions of Baptists holding meetings featuring anti-Mormon pamphlets, tapes, videos, DVD's.

The LDS Church tends to ignore individuals that stir up hate-filled anti-mormon sentiments. Nothing even close to what the Scientologists do.

This recent story about a guy selling beefcake Mormon missionary calendars was infringing on an icon. They aren't prosecuting him - but they did excommunicate him, after he refused their request to discontinue the calendars, which means that they took his name off the books. He said he was fine with that since he hadn't been participating since 2002. At the same meeting they extend their wishes that he will eventually return - no hard feelings.

If they had not made a request for him to discontinue the calendars, then, when the next guy made a porn movie featuring "missionaries" wearing name tags, they would have less of a case.

233 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:54:41pm

re: #119 Mathew1977

I would contend that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are just that: theories.

Any 'evidence' we have would fail to convince the other, because we each hold our respective 'evidence' to be conclusive and summarily reject the opposing viewpoint.

You've made that clear. And just sitting there making proclamations of your own superior ideas doesn't make you any more right than anyone else with a competing theory.

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

For bonus points, use the following criteria:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

234 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:54:51pm

re: #225 VegasRick

You are saying that because I may or may not share one belief with a radical cult we are the same.

That's not what I said.

235 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:55:19pm

OT

Susan Atkins to stay in prison


Accountability.

236 yochanan  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:55:26pm

ortho jews believe the torah is the word of G-D. now they differ on what those words mean. Nor do they call it science. there is plenty of debate on even what the lenght of creation is. I have no problem with dealing with these questions as a theological debate.

237 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:55:52pm

re: #218 VegasRick

So with that logic, are you voting for obambi because he believes in evolution?

Sal: I dunno; would you vote for Fred Phelps because he believed in creationism?

238 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:56:46pm

re: #221 yochanan

can you provide a link to the quote?

Charles Darwin quote

on page 396.

239 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:57:38pm

re: #233 Slumbering Behemoth

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

For bonus points, use the following criteria:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)



How many times must it be said

240 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:57:40pm

re: #232 DistantThunder

Killgore, this (lapsed) Methodist is with DT on this one.

/just my 8 cents (inflation)

241 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:57:54pm

OK EVERYONE -

Let's GO like this - Mt. Scopus = HADASSAH HOSPITAL. That is to say, the HOSPITAL funded by MY MOTHER and a lot of other JEWISH MOTHERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES. It has, since its inception, admitted patients without regard to background. Jewish Mothers do NOT take a lot of "Caca de Toro," Apparently, they still don't. GOOD ON 'EM!

-S-

242 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:58:20pm

re: #235 Racer X

OT

Accountability.

I was for letting her out as long as she is bedridden and cannot enjoy her freedom. It would be better for her family to have her at home, and they are victims in this as well. I would rather have my child be the victim of a monster than the monster itself.

243 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:58:26pm

re: #137 jaunte

Sometimes you need a good brick wall graphic.

Try this.

h/t Sharmuta

244 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 4:59:43pm

re: #239 reine.de.tout


How many times must it be said

DAMN, I'm glad I wasn't eating supper quite yet!

/only one spare keyboard in the house

245 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:00:31pm

re: #234 Josephine

That's not what I said.

Here's what you said.

"If fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism and support I.D., then they are, in that respect, on a par with fundamentalist Muslims who believe in creationism and support I.D."

Which "par" did you mean.
1. an equality in value or standing; a level of equality: The gains and the losses are on a par.
2. an average, usual, or normal amount, degree, quality, condition, standard, or the like: above par; to feel below par.
3. Golf. the number of strokes set as a standard for a specific hole or a complete course.
4. Finance. a. the legally established value of the monetary unit of one country in terms of that of another using the same metal as a standard of value.
b. the state of the shares of any business, undertaking, loan, etc., when they may be purchased at the original price (issue par) or at their face value (nominal par).

5. at par, Finance. (of a share) purchasable at issue par or nominal par.
–adjective 6. average or normal.
7. Finance. at or pertaining to par: the par value of a bond.
–verb (used with object) 8. Golf. to equal par on (a hole or course).
—Idiom9. par for the course, exactly what one might expect; typical: They were late again, but that's par for the course.

246 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:02:29pm

re: #217 buzzsawmonkey

Wow. You always sum up things so succiently. That was awesome. I'm not quite sold on the "leftist" argument part, though I would say far left. But you're right on.

So...if Israel rejects intelligent design, that provides domestic Islamists with a basis for suggesting to their Christian pro-ID allies that maybe Israel is...not quite so worth supporting.

That's the only bit where I wouldn't jump to conclusion so fast. More than the beginning of the Christian bible, I think the ending holds more meaning.

247 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:02:52pm

re: #231 fsjonesy

Whoo, another ID thread!

Where?

248 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:03:28pm

re: #227 Mathew1977

Where to start, where to start...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

You claim that I see ID as 'spiritual,' which I never did. As far as what place it has in a science class, I thought opposing ideas where to be exposed and debated. Our students are only getting one theory as it stands.

(Not to mention a fair portion of them can barely read or point to their own state on a map)

It's cute how you hacked up my statement as you saw fit, but no, I don't have to accept your idea.

Sal: Actually, the place where opposing scientific ideas are supposed to be exposed and debated is within the peer review process of the scientific community, but the very few articles of pseudoscientific claptrap that IDers have attempted to foist there have fared far from well.

Once again, ID is not a scientific theory, but a sectarian religious dogma endeavoring in vain to dress up on scientific clothes, but, unlike authentic and genuine scientific theories, it lacks a shred of supporting empirical evidence. It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonis lipstic is smeared across its snout.

They figure they'd have a better shot selling their snake oil to kids so ingorant that they, according to you, "can barely read or point to their own state on a map." But sectarian religious dogmas have no place in public high school science classes. Period.

249 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:04:57pm

re: #227 Mathew1977

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).

You claim that I see ID as 'spiritual,' which I never did.

Oh, this is rich. You whine and complain that it's wrong for me to call ID "religious" since God is not mentioned by name, so to make you happy I say "spiritual" instead and you accuse me of setting up a strawman argument. What adjective would be acceptable to you? Just how far must I plumb the Thesaurus to satisfy your fundie ass?

As far as what place it has in a science class, I thought opposing ideas where to be exposed and debated. Our students are only getting one theory as it stands.

You believe that just because you call ID a "theory" you have put it on the same playing field as a scientific theory like evolution. Hey Matthew, I have a "theory" that lots of pot smoking and unsafe sex will actually reduce teen pregnancies. Can I go teach a health class to your Junior High-aged children now? After all, what's wrong with a little debate and exposure to "alternative theories". It's all good, right?

(Not to mention a fair portion of them can barely read or point to their own state on a map)

Non sequitur man strikes again.

250 Render  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:05:02pm

re: #237 Salamantis

Can you comment on this?

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

LEAST
WORST
OF,
R

251 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:05:24pm

re: #232 DistantThunder

I respectfully disagree that the Mormons try to destroy our critics.


The can be very vindictive.

252 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:05:41pm

re: #240 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I was raised Catholic.

253 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:05:49pm
254 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:05:58pm

re: #248 Salamantis

Once again, ID is not a scientific theory, but a sectarian religious dogma endeavoring in vain to dress up on scientific clothes, but, unlike authentic and genuine scientific theories, it lacks a shred of supporting empirical evidence. It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonis lipstic is smeared across its snout.

Stay classy, sal.

255 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:06:11pm

re: #245 VegasRick

Here's what you said.

"If fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism and support I.D., then they are, in that respect, on a par with fundamentalist Muslims who believe in creationism and support I.D."

No, here is what I said:

re: #210 Josephine

If fundamentalist Christians believe in creationism and support I.D., then they are, in that respect, on a par with fundamentalist Muslims who believe in creationism and support I.D.

256 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:06:30pm

re: #217 buzzsawmonkey

"buzz" -

With the current "Futures Price" of OIL - Islamists can RENT - if not - BUY nearly anyone they want. YES I SAID IT! That is all.

-S-

257 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:07:08pm

re: #242 DistantThunder

I was for letting her out as long as she is bedridden and cannot enjoy her freedom. It would be better for her family to have her at home, and they are victims in this as well. I would rather have my child be the victim of a monster than the monster itself.

My only argument in favor of her release would be the state no longer has to pay for her room and board as she dies from cancer.

258 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:07:27pm
259 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:07:38pm

re: #248 Salamantis

It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonis lipstic is smeared across its snout.

For such a smart guy, you sure haven't found that spell checker yet.

You sound terrified that maybe, just maybe there is a creator to whom we are ultimately responsible.

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

260 realwest  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:07:43pm

Semi- drive by post I'm afraid - I'm in considerable dental pain and hopefully won't be on LGF tomorrow cause I'll talk the dentist into getting the offending tooth removed!
However, I do want to say on this topic (and I haven't been able to read the thread), that I hope people aren't confusing "Creationists" with ID supporters. If you believe in God or a Supreme Being by any other name, then you must, I feel, believe that that God started the ball rolling, probably in my view at least, with the spark that started the evolutionary process. I don't see how one can believe in God without believing that.
I don't believe that the Bible should be read literally, and do not want Religion taught in Public schools. I believe that makes me a "creationist" who does not support ID and frankly would appreciate it very much if all of us could understand that the term "creationist" is NOT synonymous with someone who believes in or supports Intelligent Design.

261 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:08:12pm

re: #255 Josephine

You are correct. The highlighting was mine to ask which "par" you were referring to.

262 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:08:29pm

OT: Laura Ingraham doing that prima donna thing off camera on Fox News:

[Link: www.mydamnchannel.com...]

263 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:09:15pm

re: #260 realwest

{realwest}

Let me know how things go. I hope you're feeling better soon.

264 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:09:31pm
265 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:09:35pm

O.T. Oops. Pig heads found inside mosgue compound starts riot. Wonder how they got there.

266 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:10:00pm

re: #242 DistantThunder

"D-T" -

As a "MANSONIAN" - Let Her Die - IN JAIL! 'Nuff said.

-S-

267 kansas  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:10:13pm

re: #242 DistantThunder

I was for letting her out as long as she is bedridden and cannot enjoy her freedom. It would be better for her family to have her at home, and they are victims in this as well. I would rather have my child be the victim of a monster than the monster itself.

She can get out in a few months.

268 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:10:17pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

Because one is science (evolution) and one is religion (ID). Only the science should be taught in science class.

269 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:11:46pm

By the way, the respect for science on display in this article is a very good reason why Israel excels at scientific research and breakthroughs.

And the rise of creationism and ID in America is one reason why the US is slipping drastically.

270 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:11:52pm

re: #263 goddessoftheclassroom

{realwest}

Let me know how things go. I hope you're feeling better soon.


you are good people godess...
regards
the hoopster

271 coquimbojoe  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:11:57pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout

The Mormons do the same thing. Same with the Catholic League. Sure the Scientologists are extra whacky but so is Benny Hinn. In terms of damage to society I'd say they do about as much damage as the Televangelists.

I gotta disagree with you there. We have an 'article of faith':

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I have seen nothing but tolerance for others' opinions. People ARE excommunicated for working against the church from with in. But there is no legal action taken nor are they stopped from speaking or associating with members of the faith. Whenever I have seen someone belittle another's faith or politics and they get asked immediately to knock it off even if it is a room full of Mormons. We are not perfect by any means, but tolerance for anyone's set of beliefs is in our core principals hence putting up with others' attacks on us is part of that.

272 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:12:29pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

You sound terrified that maybe, just maybe there is a creator to whom we are ultimately responsible.

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

There is nothing wrong with saying that... in a theology, world history, psychology, current events, or other social studies or humanities course. You know, where it belongs.

273 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:12:34pm

re: #268 Charles

Because one is science (evolution) and one is religion (ID). Only the science should be taught in science class.

Thank you for distilling the science vs religion argument down to one sentence.

274 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:12:52pm

re: #261 VegasRick

Your highlighting changed my emphasis and, hence, my meaning.

A Golden Delicious apple is an apple. A Granny Smith apple is an apple. They do not look the same and they do not taste the same. They are both apples.

275 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:12:53pm

re: #270 HoosierHoops

you are good people godess...
regards
the hoopster

Yes, but I'm a teacher, and we all know how horrible American public schools are and how were slipping...

/snark off

276 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:13:31pm

re: #275 goddessoftheclassroom

Yes, but I'm a teacher, and we all know how horrible American public schools are and how were slipping...

/snark off

PIMF we're

277 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:13:33pm

re: #223 buzzsawmonkey
Then we'll save it for another day. I'll try to find a better link for 'proximal zone' than Wiki. They have a really bland, non-controversial version. Perhaps in the almost 20 years (yikes!) since my college psych it has become more mainstream thinking.

278 realwest  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:13:34pm

re: #268 Charles Charles I agree with you, but do not think that one group is religion (ID), for the reasons I set forth in my #260.

279 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:13:41pm

re: #250 Render

Can you comment on this?

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

LEAST
WORST
OF,
R

Sal: I have not found most NeoPagans to be creationists; I have found them to be much more willing to accept myths as myths than adherents to other faiths. My more comprehensive views on this matter are to be found here:

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

AND
I
DON'T
CARE
IF
YOU
DON'T
LIKE
THEM,

Sal

280 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:14:52pm

I'm going out to buy some TGIFriday's strawberry daiquiri mix. BBIAM.

281 realwest  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:14:58pm

Sorry all y'all but I have to leave now.
I hope you all have a great evening and that I get the chance to see you down the road.

282 kansas  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:15:19pm

re: #279 Salamantis

EE Cummings?

283 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:15:58pm

re: #281 realwest

Good luck with your tooth, realwest. I hope you feel better soon.

284 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:16:16pm

re: #281 realwest

Have a peaceful evening in beautiful NC.

285 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:16:16pm

re: #276 goddessoftheclassroom

PIMF we're

i don't know what that means..
/

286 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:16:37pm

re: #278 realwest

Charles I agree with you, but do not think that one group is religion (ID), for the reasons I set forth in my #260.

Sorry, realwest, you're mistaken. The "intelligent design" political movement is absolutely a religious one: Intelligent design.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

287 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:16:37pm

re: #264 buzzsawmonkey

Nobody can rent, or buy, someone or something that is not on the market. No matter what the current price of oil is.

"Buzz" -

Get with the program - all we'all have the best government that Money Can Buy. Perhaps it has. Would that it hasn't.

-S-

288 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:16:47pm

re: #271 coquimbojoe

My Impressions of Mormonism comes from stories like these: Suppression of dissent, Church monitors members' critical publications
. I'm not bashing Mormons here. I just brought them up as an example of the many (pretty much all) religions with questionable practices. Yes, Scientology is a problem but I don't think they need to be singled out for extra scrutiny or ridicule. They can get the same ridicule as everybody else.

289 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:17:44pm

re: #281 realwest

Dental problem? I feel your pain. Nothing worse than a toothache.

290 FQ Kafir  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:18:13pm

re: #262 Charles

Jeez, she's kind of a pill to work with, huh?

291 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:18:21pm
292 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:18:33pm

re: #285 HoosierHoops

Preview is my friend.

293 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:18:33pm

re: #254 VegasRick

Once again, ID is not a scientific theory, but a sectarian religious dogma endeavoring in vain to dress up on scientific clothes, but, unlike authentic and genuine scientific theories, it lacks a shred of supporting empirical evidence. It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonis lipstic is smeared across its snout.

Stay classy, sal.

Sal: But what do you think the Disco Dewdes were trying to do with the very name ID that they invented, if not to attempt a propaganda PR relabeling of creationism after they lost court cases concerning sticking it into public high school science classes? And that is, indeed trying to smear lipstick on a pig - that is, renaming something unappetizing to the public, in order to render it more palatable. But it still is what it is, regardless of the semiotic mascara. Just as the judge in the Dover case found.

294 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:19:03pm

re: #289 Bobblehead

"Bobble"

Two (2) Advils might help.

-S-

295 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:19:17pm

re: #251 Killgore Trout

The can be very vindictive.

When I tell my daughter that she cannot go out dressed in micro shorts, she has essentially accused me of being vindictive.

In every case I've seen, the LDS church has a live and let live philosophy. But because the church is staffed by volunteers, if the volunteers take action to undermine the church, contrary to the teachings of the church, there is accountability. Some people call accountability, vindictiveness, especially if they are the ones being held accountable.

Accountability is essentially an opportunity in meeting for the person in question to explain his actions, or if he'd rather not, then suggest they find a church that more directly reflects the persons values. But sometimes you have a Scott McClellan like situation, with Scotty calling his former friends vindictive.

Mormon's were too often the victims of persecution, and is some areas, still are, so that the last thing the LDS church wants to do is make people feel persecuted.

296 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:19:21pm

re: #260 realwest

I think in most of these conversations, "creationist" means a person who believed in a literal 6 day creation and earth is 6000 years old.

297 mean Gene  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:19:32pm

It was devious of the Muslim group to try to sneak anti-Darwinism into a terror/peace related symposium.
Who knows what will happen if they honestly try to come without the false pretenses.
Will there be some Jewish groups who would accept them?
Are all Jews in Israel secularists?

298 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:20:00pm

re: #274 Josephine

Your highlighting changed my emphasis and, hence, my meaning.

A Golden Delicious apple is an apple. A Granny Smith apple is an apple. They do not look the same and they do not taste the same. They are both apples.

Really.
So I am "on a par with fundamentalist Muslims" for believing that God created the world? I have never and will never insult someone who believes in evolution and I would expect that same respect from others here at LGF.

299 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:20:00pm
300 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:21:19pm

re: #258 buzzsawmonkey

I could be wrong, of course. But it seems to me we are witnessing the beginnings of some very strange and troubling political realignments.

That's a big knuckle bump right there! (I guess we don't high five anymore.)

I have hope things will work out well. I have to, otherwise you'd find me running up and down the street, screaming, possibly with my hair on fire, etc.

301 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:22:22pm

re: #296 Sharmuta

I think in most of these conversations, "creationist" means a person who believed in a literal 6 day creation and earth is 6000 years old.

Actually there are two schools of "creationism" -- one believes the Bible is literally true and the earth is only 6,000 years old (young earth creationists), and one believes the earth is older, but the Bible is still literally true (old earth creationists). The old earth creationists redefine the meaning of "days" in order to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with an older earth.

302 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:22:46pm

re: #94 Mathew1977

I thought that rigorous debate makes is what makes science credible.

If one group stands up and says, 'We're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong,' doesn't that stifle debate?

Look. I am going to assume that your mind and heart are in the right place. That you're asking an honest question, that you really do mean well, and that you're going to read what I'm about to say carefully and give it a lot of thought.

Western civilization, and especially American civilization, is built on certain ground rules. Certain pillars, if you will.

One of these pillars is the idea that there is an objective reality. Another pillar is the idea that through scientific methodology--collecting evidence, making observations, conducting experiments, and so on--we can discover and KNOW things about this reality with a very high degree of certainty. And another pillar is a kind of social contract that says, "So we can function and move forward as a society, we will generally agree that what science determines is objective reality, IS objective reality, for most of our interactions, activities, and business." (Of course, a caveat on that last rule--it's important to remember that scientists don't always get it right the first time and that it can take many, many years, decades even, to develop an accurate and coherent picture of some aspect of reality--for example, climate change, where the "consensus" on global warming is indeed being effectively challenged by new research.)

With me so far? OK, let's say you accept these ground rules, and enter into a debate with someone about some aspect of the natural world (not philosophy or religion). Let's say you take the position that babies are delivered from cabbage patches by storks. Your opponent takes the position that, you know, sex, sperm, egg, 9 months, yadda yadda yadda.

OK, still with me? Now, remember those ground rules. Evidence. Objective reality. Wouldn't you agree that, at some point during the debate, with these ground rules in force, you are eventually going to have to throw in the towel? You are not going to be able to produce any credible evidence that babies grow in cabbage patches and are delivered by storks, while your opponent will absolutely overwhelm you with evidence--films of little sperm fertilizing eggs, cells dividing, pictures of fetuses at various stages of development, real live pregnant women, maybe he will even take you to a delivery room.

If you agree with the ground rules, which, as I noted, are the foundation for much of our modern civilization (including our legal system), at a certain point you will have to admit that further debate will be fruitless and pointless. Your opponent has won. The objective reality is that babies come from their mommy's tummies, not from storks. As a society, we agree on this. We add it to the catalog of other objective realities. We move on, and forward.

Or, we can keep on arguing, and fighting, and running in circles, and getting absolutely nowhere. This is a major reason the Third World is such a cesspool, and anything in it that actually works has been borrowed from the West. This is a major reason Europe was a bloody mess for hundreds of years (and it was the RE-introduction of Dark Ages irrationality, albeit in political and ideological form, that turned it into a bloody mess again).

Evolution was proposed over 150 years ago. It has been vigorously (and rigorously) debated ever since that time. It has been challenged not just by the religious but by other scientists. It has survived every challenge. Every single bit of evidence collected since Darwin's time has supported evolution. There is some debate now among scientists as to whether evolution by mutation and natural selection is the SOLE driving force of evolution, but there is no doubt whatsoever that M & NS is the major player. And the proposals for additional forces are grounded in nature and subject to observation, testing, experimentation, etc.

(cont)

303 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:23:30pm

re: #294 Dr. Shalit

All my dental problems were resolved when I had my wisdom teeth removed and every other tooth in my mouth overhauled a couple of years ago. Anyone had dry sockets? Ouch!

304 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:23:56pm

re: #252 Killgore Trout

I was raised Catholic.

Back in much later ... I'd gathered that.

305 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:23:59pm

re: #286 Charles

Egads, not the God of Christianity!

Faith and hope and love, oh, my!

306 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:24:32pm

re: #262 Charles

OT: Laura Ingraham doing that prima donna thing off camera on Fox News:

[Link: www.mydamnchannel.com...]

I'm not seeing anything really bad. Just voicing her displeasure with her staff.

Should we have a bubble-headed bleach-blonde come on live at 5?

307 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:25:15pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonic lipstick is smeared across its snout.

For such a smart guy, you sure haven't found that spell checker yet.

You sound terrified that maybe, just maybe there is a creator to whom we are ultimately responsible.

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

Sal: Such discussions as to what different groups believe do not belong in public high school science class. You wanna talk that sort of stuff, you do it in a comparative religion class, where all the faiths have an equal shot.

You sound terrified that, just maybe, kids will learn such things as scientific methods and verification principles and falsification principles in science class, instead of being deluged with your sectarian religious dogmas, which do not belong there.

And sometimes my two-finger typing fails me, and my fingers get confused - which is to be vastly preferred to your cognitive confusion as to what is and is not science (hint: it has to do with empirical evidence) and what therefore does and does not belong in public high school science class.

308 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:26:25pm

re: #298 VegasRick

Really.
So I am "on a par with fundamentalist Muslims" for believing that God created the world? I have never and will never insult someone who believes in evolution and I would expect that same respect from others here at LGF.

If a Christian

is a creationist and believes in ID

then

IN THAT RESPECT

how is that different from

a Muslim

who is a creationist and believes in ID?

If they share the same beliefs, then

IN THAT RESPECT

what is the difference?

Separate the tenets.

Put them in a table.

Just because

A = A

doesn't mean that

B = C.

309 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:27:56pm

re: #302 Tigger2005

Look. I am going to assume that your mind and heart are in the right place. That you're asking an honest question, that you really do mean well, and that you're going to read what I'm about to say carefully and give it a lot of thought.

Western civilization, and especially American civilization, is built on certain ground rules. Certain pillars, if you will.

One of these pillars is the idea that there is an objective reality. Another pillar is the idea that through scientific methodology--collecting evidence, making observations, conducting experiments, and so on--we can discover and KNOW things about this reality with a very high degree of certainty. And another pillar is a kind of social contract that says, "So we can function and move forward as a society, we will generally agree that what science determines is objective reality, IS objective reality, for most of our interactions, activities, and business." (Of course, a caveat on that last rule--it's important to remember that scientists don't always get it right the first time and that it can take many, many years, decades even, to develop an accurate and coherent picture of some aspect of reality--for example, climate change, where the "consensus" on global warming is indeed being effectively challenged by new research.)

With me so far? OK, let's say you accept these ground rules, and enter into a debate with someone about some aspect of the natural world (not philosophy or religion). Let's say you take the position that babies are delivered from cabbage patches by storks. Your opponent takes the position that, you know, sex, sperm, egg, 9 months, yadda yadda yadda.

OK, still with me? Now, remember those ground rules. Evidence. Objective reality. Wouldn't you agree that, at some point during the debate, with these ground rules in force, you are eventually going to have to throw in the towel? You are not going to be able to produce any credible evidence that babies grow in cabbage patches and are delivered by storks, while your opponent will absolutely overwhelm you with evidence--films of little sperm fertilizing eggs, cells dividing, pictures of fetuses at various stages of development, real live pregnant women, maybe he will even take you to a delivery room.

If you agree with the ground rules, which, as I noted, are the foundation for much of our modern civilization (including our legal system), at a certain point you will have to admit that further debate will be fruitless and pointless. Your opponent has won. The objective reality is that babies come from their mommy's tummies, not from storks. As a society, we agree on this. We add it to the catalog of other objective realities. We move on, and forward.

Or, we can keep on arguing, and fighting, and running in circles, and getting absolutely nowhere. This is a major reason the Third World is such a cesspool, and anything in it that actually works has been borrowed from the West. This is a major reason Europe was a bloody mess for hundreds of years (and it was the RE-introduction of Dark Ages irrationality, albeit in political and ideological form, that turned it into a bloody mess again).

Evolution was proposed over 150 years ago. It has been vigorously (and rigorously) debated ever since that time. It has been challenged not just by the religious but by other scientists. It has survived every challenge. Every single bit of evidence collected since Darwin's time has supported evolution. There is some debate now among scientists as to whether evolution by mutation and natural selection is the SOLE driving force of evolution, but there is no doubt whatsoever that M & NS is the major player. And the proposals for additional forces are grounded in nature and subject to observation, testing, experimentation, etc.

(cont)

All smug condescension aside, I reject the notion that you have the equivalent of videos of sperm entering the egg to prove man evolved from apes.

I do appreciate your eloquent and concise post, however.

310 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:28:05pm

re: #305 Mathew1977

Egads, not the God of Christianity!

Faith and hope and love, oh, my!

Ahh, so now you are accepting that ID has religious roots, and you think we should all be ridiculed because the roots of ID are so benign. Make up your mind, Matthew, or are you just here to "debate" like a Kos Kiddie?

311 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:28:51pm

re: #269 Charles

By the way, the respect for science on display in this article is a very good reason why Israel excels at scientific research and breakthroughs.

And the rise of creationism and ID in America is one reason why the US is slipping drastically.


I'm not so sure about creationism and ID being the cause for the slippage. There used to be a respect for science is schools that I don't believe there is any longer. I'm not positive that it's related to the goals in 'No Child Left Behind' which is concerned not one iota with science, but that is my strong suspicion. If that is the case, then any two bit book publisher than can produce a cheap textbook on any charlatan topic should be able to have a field day. It's a shame.

312 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:29:14pm

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'


Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.


Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

313 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:29:16pm

re: #288 Killgore Trout

My Impressions of Mormonism comes from stories like these: Suppression of dissent, Church monitors members' critical publications
. I'm not bashing Mormons here. I just brought them up as an example of the many (pretty much all) religions with questionable practices. Yes, Scientology is a problem but I don't think they need to be singled out for extra scrutiny or ridicule. They can get the same ridicule as everybody else.

My opinion of Mormons comes almost solely from those I know, and have known.

/just for context here
/that and I don't trust Wikipedia on some things

314 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:29:24pm

re: #310 Lizard by the Bay

Ahh, so now you are accepting that ID has religious roots, and you think we should all be ridiculed because the roots of ID are so benign. Make up your mind, Matthew, or are you just here to "debate" like a Kos Kiddie?

I was having a little fun at Charle's expense.

And please spell my name correctly if you are going to use it to reprimand me.

315 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:29:52pm

re: #311 EC Marm

I'm not so sure about creationism and ID being the cause for the slippage.

I didn't say it was the cause. I said it was one reason.

316 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:30:08pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

For such a smart guy, you sure haven't found that spell checker yet.

Weak. Irrelevant. Everyone makes typos here, and I'm sure you have as well.

317 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:30:27pm

re: #288 Killgore Trout

My Impressions of Mormonism comes from stories like these: Suppression of dissent, Church monitors members' critical publications
. I'm not bashing Mormons here. I just brought them up as an example of the many (pretty much all) religions with questionable practices. Yes, Scientology is a problem but I don't think they need to be singled out for extra scrutiny or ridicule. They can get the same ridicule as everybody else.

This is from wikipedia - and besides - of course the church is going to read what is said about them - is that monitoring? Think about the mentality of a person who chooses to make their life work as the enemy of a belief system, unless that belief system is causing bodily harm. The Church not only has tolerated different views, but I was at a Church sponsored writers symposium in hawaii, and one of the invited speakers was the editor of a Mormon journal that published dissident view. It takes confidence to invite your critics to speak at your own hosted symposium.

It works in our critics interests if they can convince outsiders that the church is "after" them. The Church isn't, because it's all free speech, something the Scientologists don't seem to understand. As missionaries we were taught to ignore combative critics, ie turn the other cheek. It made them even angrier when we wouldn't engage them in an argument.

318 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:30:45pm

re: #316 Slumbering Behemoth

Weak. Irrelevant. Everyone makes typos here, and I'm sure you have as well.

Did you stop reading at the first sentence?

319 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:31:10pm

re: #313 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I've known many Mormons and they're mostly fine folks. I've known plenty of scientologists and they're nice too.

320 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:31:11pm

re: #314 Mathew1977

I was having a little fun at Charle's expense.

And please spell my name correctly if you are going to use it to reprimand me.

And you're the same person who has complained throughout this thread about being mocked.

321 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:31:39pm

re: #308 Josephine

If a Christian

is a creationist and believes in ID

then

IN THAT RESPECT

how is that different from

a Muslim

who is a creationist and believes in ID?

If they share the same beliefs, then

IN THAT RESPECT

what is the difference?

Separate the tenets.

Put them in a table.

Just because

A = A

doesn't mean that

B = C.

Wow. That is a lot of steps to get to your point. Have you ever met Kevin Bacon or his gardener? You argue like a liberal.

322 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:31:43pm

re: #301 Charles

Actually there are two schools of "creationism" -- one believes the Bible is literally true and the earth is only 6,000 years old (young earth creationists), and one believes the earth is older, but the Bible is still literally true (old earth creationists). The old earth creationists redefine the meaning of "days" in order to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with an older earth.

You're right.

It's just in the last few days on these threads, I think a couple of people have been confused as to what is meant by "creationist". I think the last thing this issue needs is more distortion- that I believe in both God and accept evolution, calling myself a creationist because of my belief in God would be just that- a distortion.

323 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:09pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

It's still a pig, no matter how much jargonis lipstic is smeared across its snout.

For such a smart guy, you sure haven't found that spell checker yet.

You sound terrified that maybe, just maybe there is a creator to whom we are ultimately responsible.

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

Put it this way. Assuming that the majority of the people here are adults (reasonable or otherwise) and we can't even discuss the topic without mud flying around the room, how do you expect it to be taught to and received by teens?

There was a reason my parents' generation said never discuss politics or religion in public.

Carry on :)

324 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:11pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

Amen (heh) ... and especially if it's this blockhead who's trying to foment it.

325 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:30pm

It bears repeating, because some people never get it, that there is no dichotomy between accepting evolution (science) and believing in God. Many religious people accept evolution. Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist.

Organizations and individuals push the dichotomy (the ICR, DI) because they believe by so doing they will bring religious people to their side.

Evolution Creation continuum.

Old Earth Creationism
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be figurative lengths of time, and the time scales given by geologists are generally correct. However, the special creation of man precludes common descent.

(ID is a subset of Old Earth Creationism used to obscure the fact that its proponents are trying to evade US law and insert religious belief into high school science classrooms.)

Theistic Evolution
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the story line is considered as an explanation for the why and who of creation, but not the exact method.

326 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:52pm

re: #324 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Gotta love those eyebrows.

327 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:56pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

I call that sucking up to Muslims and it makes me more than nervous.

328 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:56pm

OT

Fox News takes aim at MSNBC
Wallace says rival 'in the tank' for Obama

Continuing Fox News' war of words with MSNBC, "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace accused its rival of being "in the tank" for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, while further pressing the news channel's case that the mainstream press exhibits a liberal bias.
"I think MSNBC's coverage went so far over the line that it lost all credibility," Wallace told reporters Monday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour.

Ya, think?

329 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:32:56pm

re: #320 Charles

And you're the same person who has complained throughout this thread about being mocked.

Really? Where have I complained? You've deleted several of my posts, perhaps it was in one of those, but I'm not a complainer. I just disagree with your opinion. I've kept my thoughts clean and without vitriol or name-calling.

330 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:33:03pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

He should be called the Arch-Heretic of Canterbury. It's a shame the Queen won't sack him, but she has to keep her Muslim-leaning son happy.

331 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:33:12pm

re: #314 Mathew1977

I was having a little fun at Charle's expense.

And please spell my name correctly if you are going to use it to reprimand me.

/And I could say the same about your use of the apostrophe.

332 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:18pm

re: #329 Mathew1977

Really? Where have I complained? You've deleted several of my posts, perhaps it was in one of those, but I'm not a complainer. I just disagree with your opinion. I've kept my thoughts clean and without vitriol or name-calling.

Only one post of yours was deleted, the one in which you complained about this topic being posted.

333 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:19pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

And what if I find Islam offensive?
Or the Amish?
Or Atheists?

/last one just for KT ;-P

334 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:27pm

re: #331 Josephine

/And I could say the same about your use of the apostrophe.

Hoisted by my own petard!

Nice one. I admit defeat. Go Darwin.

335 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:36pm

re: #321 VegasRick

Wow. That is a lot of steps to get to your point. Have you ever met Kevin Bacon or his gardener? You argue like a liberal.

That's not an answer.

336 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:38pm

re: #315 Charles

I didn't say it was the cause. I said it was one reason.


Opps, right you are. Doing too many things at once.

337 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:34:54pm

re: #301 Charles

re: #296 Sharmuta

I think in most of these conversations, "creationist" means a person who believed in a literal 6 day creation and earth is 6000 years old.

Actually there are two schools of "creationism" -- one believes the Bible is literally true and the earth is only 6,000 years old (young earth creationists), and one believes the earth is older, but the Bible is still literally true (old earth creationists). The old earth creationists redefine the meaning of "days" in order to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with an older earth.

Sal: I'm just wondering when they're redefine the meaning of "create" in order to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with the genetic and paleontological evidence.

338 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:35:17pm

re: #332 Charles

Only one post of yours was deleted, the one in which you complained about this topic being posted.

As a point of fact, you said that I complained about being mocked. So which is it?

339 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:35:27pm

re: #291 buzzsawmonkey

Sounds like you've been reading Greg Palast for content.

"Buzz"

Palast or NOT Palast - who cares. All 'ya'all have NO IDEA how "PLUCKING ANGRY" I get when I see JEWISH U.S. SENATORS - AND I SHALL NAME NAMES - Schumer, Feingold, BOXER, Feinstein - who put the current day equivalent of STALINISM before the USA - MUCH LESS THE JEWISH RELIGION. Were I the "Jewish Pope" all of the mentioned would be "excommunicated." As to SCHUMER - as the Chinese say - YOU PLICK!
You are the Man that Broke the Bank - IN PASADENA! That is all - FOR NOW!

-S-

340 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:35:31pm

re: #296 Sharmuta

I think in most of these conversations, "creationist" means a person who believed in a literal 6 day creation and earth is 6000 years old.

Perhaps we need to be more specific in our terminology. A creationist who believes in a 6 day creation and 6000 year old earth (give or take) is a Young Earth Creationist, as opposed to Old Earth Creationists.

(I know you know that, Sharm--others may not.)

341 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:35:48pm

re: #319 Killgore Trout

I've known many Mormons and they're mostly fine folks. I've known plenty of scientologists and they're nice too.

Though I did know one Mormon mother and father who were ... well ... innocous, but their daughter? ... O'M'GOD!

/you don't want to know ... people are people

342 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:35:54pm

re: #325 transient

Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, nor does thinking God created the universe make one a creationist.

343 Empire1  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:36:10pm

re: #123 Mathew1977

I'd like one of those 'Darwin' car stickers shaped like a fish with legs.

(Of which we've never found, by the way)

Try doing a search on "Darwin Fish". Or go to a science fiction convention; those used to have schools of them when I was going regularly.

344 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:36:32pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, nor does thinking God created the universe make one a creationist.

I agree!

345 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:36:33pm

re: #333 jcm

Exactly, everybody considers everybody else offensive. That goes without saying. Inter-religious dialogue, like multiculturalism, only goes one way.

346 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:37:09pm
347 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:37:23pm

re: #326 Killgore Trout

Gotta love those eyebrows.

The upwards point is satanic.

348 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:37:49pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout
The article doesn't say whether he made those pronouncements inside an empty church. If it wasn't empty this week, it should be by next.

349 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:37:53pm

re: #262 Charles

OT: Laura Ingraham doing that prima donna thing off camera on Fox News:

[Link: www.mydamnchannel.com...]

Nine minutes over how long a period of time? Didn't seem bad to me. She got conflicting cues when she was on the air about having fifteen and thirty seconds left. No notes. People rambling in your ear. I can't imagine the pressure of going on live when you're not prepared. She never raised her voice once. Never called anybody a name.

350 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:38:15pm

re: #60 Mathew1977

Considering that ID has been repeated revealed as a fraud? Yep. Stupid.

351 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:38:33pm

re: #335 Josephine

That's not an answer.

Okay, you win. In that respect, I am on a par with fundamentalist muslimes. (if only you knew me you would know how funny that really is, I gotta tell some of my friends. They'll LOL!)

352 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:38:39pm

re: #324 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Amen (heh) ... and especially if it's this blockhead who's trying to foment it.

You have no idea how much this breaks my heart. I'm Episcopalian, and I'm watching my church crumble from within.

To tie back to Distant Thunder: if a religion has a set of rules, its adherent are expected to follow them. If the adherents do not follow them, consequences ensue. When the rules are not upheld or adapted and just ignored, that religion falls.

353 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:38:48pm

re: #349 HelloDare

Nine minutes over how long a period of time? Didn't seem bad to me. She got conflicting cues when she was on the air about having fifteen and thirty seconds left. No notes. People rambling in your ear. I can't imagine the pressure of going on live when you're not prepared. She never raised her voice once. Never called anybody a name.

I'm not trying to bash Laura Ingraham (I usually agree with her except when she has Pat Buchanan on her show), but with a lifetime in the music business I can recognize prima donna behavior when I see it.

354 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:39:52pm

re: #345 Killgore Trout

Exactly, everybody considers everybody else offensive. That goes without saying. Inter-religious dialogue, like multiculturalism, only goes one way.

Because we live in a society that has religious tolerance, and freedom of religion. I am more than willing to coexist tolerate be accommodating to any and all religions or lack thereof, as long as the the consideration is returned in kind. If not, all bets are off.

355 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:39:53pm

re: #340 transient

Perhaps we need to be more specific in our terminology. A creationist who believes in a 6 day creation and 6000 year old earth (give or take) is a Young Earth Creationist, as opposed to Old Earth Creationists.

(I know you know that, Sharm--others may not.)

Both groups deny evolution though, right?

356 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:40:05pm

re: #345 Killgore Trout

Exactly, everybody considers everybody else offensive. That goes without saying. Inter-religious dialogue, like multiculturalism, only goes one way.

You are offensive

/perfect chance!

357 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:40:45pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'


Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.

Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

If he believes that Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, and he believes that there should be an alliance forged between the two faiths for the "common good", then what does he propose doing with that portion of Christian doctrine that Muslims find offensive? Dispose of it?

358 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:40:54pm

re: #353 Charles

I'm not trying to bash Laura Ingraham, but with a lifetime in the music business I can recognize prima donna behavior when I see it.

Just ask Kathleen Battle, the only singer ever banned in the Metropolitan Opera's history.

359 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:41:26pm

re: #77 Racer X

That is intentional. If the IDers are successful in baiting pro-evolutionists into discussing religion, then they get 1) victim status and 2) diverted attention from the fact that they're trying to subvert the Constitution.

360 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:42:19pm
361 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:42:34pm

re: #77 Racer X

This debate inevitably turns into religion vs atheism.

That is missing the point entirely. The point is what should be allowed to be taught in public schools?

EXACTLY! (Sorry for yelling.)

362 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:43:00pm

re: #352 goddessoftheclassroom

You have no idea how much this breaks my heart. I'm Episcopalian, and I'm watching my church crumble from within.

To tie back to Distant Thunder: if a religion has a set of rules, its adherent are expected to follow them. If the adherents do not follow them, consequences ensue. When the rules are not upheld or adapted and just ignored, that religion falls.

I'd nitpick by redefining it as ... a capital-R, Established Religion/Denomination/et cetera. As a whole, Christianity has survived pretty well, and will continue too, no matter what the Islamists do.

363 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:43:03pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, nor does thinking God created the universe make one a creationist.

Ding, ding, ding.
I do not see them as mutually exclusive.

364 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:43:43pm

re: #301 Charles

Actually there are two schools of "creationism" -- one believes the Bible is literally true and the earth is only 6,000 years old (young earth creationists), and one believes the earth is older, but the Bible is still literally true (old earth creationists). The old earth creationists redefine the meaning of "days" in order to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with an older earth.

Don't forget the progressive creationists, a variation of old earth. This is the exact tack that DI is taking atm. Remember, they won't dispute fossils, or that species can change. This allows them room to accept parts, but not all of evolution. The part they don't accept, that one species can evolve into a new order or class is needed for design. That's the basis of why they must attack evolution instead of looking into cosmology etc.

365 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:44:06pm

re: #309 Mathew1977

All smug condescension aside, I reject the notion that you have the equivalent of videos of sperm entering the egg to prove man evolved from apes.

I do appreciate your eloquent and concise post, however.

Sal: We DO have the equivalent of that level of empirical evidence to prove that humans and great apes evolved from common ancestors, though; and all humans and great apes carry it in every DNA strand in each one of our many, many cells. It's the thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences to be found in the identical positions in our DNA and in theirs. Absent common ancestors from which we all diverged, there is NO STATISICALLY RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR IT. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Them's the facts, when it comes to brass tacks. Deal with that white dog truth. Or not, as the intentionally self-delusory and willfully ignorant case may be.

366 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:44:17pm

Just received from a creationist in Australia:

"Notice the deceptive tactics, very reminiscent of the work of the Discovery Institute."

That accusation against Discovery Institute is below the belt.

Name one example of deception, make your case and let us examine it.

It's not being deceptive to disagree with majority opinion.

Someone hasn't been paying attention.

367 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:44:39pm

re: #357 reine.de.tout

If he believes that Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, and he believes that there should be an alliance forged between the two faiths for the "common good", then what does he propose doing with that portion of Christian doctrine that Muslims find offensive? Dispose of it?

It's an interesting point, because most doctrines of other faiths I would not elevate to the standard of offensive, just different than I believe. However, in the case of Islam there is some very offensive definitions of women and Jews and Christians.

368 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:44:44pm

#357 reine.de.tout

Continuing your thought..How about Muslims abandon the portions of Islam Christians find offensive. Any chance of that ever happening? Nah.

369 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:45:45pm

re: #356 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You are offensive


I try.

370 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:45:50pm

re: #119 Mathew1977

And you would be wrong or blatently lying. ID has been demonstrated to be nothing more than a piss-poor "Find and Replace" fraud that tries to make biblical creationism look like science in a blantant attack on the 1st Ammendment to the U.S. Constition.

Matt, what is your oppinion of the 1st Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution?

371 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:45:53pm

re: #357 reine.de.tout

If he believes that Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, and he believes that there should be an alliance forged between the two faiths for the "common good", then what does he propose doing with that portion of Christian doctrine that Muslims find offensive? Dispose of it?

Only the airhead knows.

/colossal over-estimation of mental capabilities

372 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:46:02pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, nor does thinking God created the universe make one a creationist.

Right. That's the theistic evolution end of the continuum.

But sounds like Mathew (did I spell it right? I'm going to lie awake all night worrying about that, Oh My) is closer to an Old Earth creationist (at least) than identifying with theistic evolution.

373 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:46:03pm

re: #327 Bobblehead

I call that sucking up to Muslims and it makes me more than nervous.

It's far worse than sucking up. It's a stated desire and intention to surrender everything Christian (and English) that might offend some encroaching foreign faith and culture, with no reciprocation required or even expected.

374 auldtrafford  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:46:07pm

Anybody remember the old song (Jerry Lee Lewis?): Sittin' in La-La, playin' with my Yahya, uh-huh ..hh. Yeah.

Or was it Sittin' in Yahya playin' with my La-La?

Sorry; carry on.

375 Ceemack  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:46:41pm

re: #109 WitchDoctor

If I believe the Lord created everything including the rules by which we/animals live, then what is the fricking problem?


The fricking problem is that some people want your particular set of beliefs taught in science courses in our schools. And your belief is religious, not scientific; it cannot be supported by verifiable observation or experimentation.

Which means it has no fricking business in a science class.

Believe whatever you want. I have no fricking problem with that. Just don't try to have it taught as "science".

376 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:47:12pm

re: #318 Mathew1977

Did you stop reading at the first sentence?

Did you bother reading my first post to you?

re: #233 Slumbering Behemoth

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

For bonus points, use the following criteria:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

377 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:47:21pm

re: #318 Mathew1977

re: #316 Slumbering Behemoth

Weak. Irrelevant. Everyone makes typos here, and I'm sure you have as well.

Did you stop reading at the first sentence?

Sal: He might has well have; the rest was no better.

378 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:47:26pm

re: #362 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'd nitpick by redefining it as ... a capital-R, Established Religion/Denomination/et cetera. As a whole, Christianity has survived pretty well, and will continue too, no matter what the Islamists do.

Yes, small r religion: a way of practicing Christianity.

379 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:48:12pm

re: #367 DistantThunder

It's an interesting point, because most doctrines of other faiths I would not elevate to the standard of offensive, just different than I believe. However, in the case of Islam there is some very offensive definitions of women and Jews and Christians.

yes.
And we know Islam won't change . . . so what is he proposing to do, then - change Christian doctrine in order to forge an alliance with Islam for the overall good?

380 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:48:42pm

re: #366 Charles

Just received from a creationist in Australia:


Someone hasn't been paying attention.

Wrong. He's been paying rapt attention to his self-selected circle of acquaintances. He's living in an echo chamber.

381 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:49:12pm

re: #376 Slumbering Behemoth

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Pfftt!
Too much work.

1. Jump to conclusion...
Turtles all the way down!

See, much less hassle!
/

382 rightymouse  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:49:21pm

re: #311 EC Marm

I'm not so sure about creationism and ID being the cause for the slippage. There used to be a respect for science is schools that I don't believe there is any longer. I'm not positive that it's related to the goals in 'No Child Left Behind' which is concerned not one iota with science, but that is my strong suspicion. If that is the case, then any two bit book publisher than can produce a cheap textbook on any charlatan topic should be able to have a field day. It's a shame.

Agreed. At my son's previous Catholic School, human created global warming as science, was shoved in his face and his father and I had to give him facts that they did not. He's in a secular private school now.

I agree that in science classes when discussing evolution, bringing in God is not relevant - evolution is a scientific fact and really should not be confused with the origins of the earth/universe which tend to be either religiously based or theoretical.

383 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:49:40pm

re: #378 goddessoftheclassroom

Yes, small r religion: a way of practicing Christianity.

*rise*
*bow respectfully in agreement*

384 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:49:57pm

re: #355 Sharmuta

Both groups deny evolution though, right?

Yes. An Old Earth Creationist may tell you they believe in "micro" but not "macro" evolution, and will argue for special creation of man.

385 Ceemack  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:50:20pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout
Funny, I've never seen or heard of the Mormon church doing that.

386 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:50:32pm

re: #384 transient

Yes. An Old Earth Creationist may tell you they believe in "micro" but not "macro" evolution, and will argue for special creation of man.

Then that's what I am, but I'm not suggesting that be taught in science class.

387 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:50:36pm

re: #376 Slumbering Behemoth

Wait- is Mathew working towards his martyr points?

/trying to play catch up on this thread

388 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:51:13pm

re: #379 reine.de.tout

yes.
And we know Islam won't change . . . so what is he proposing to do, then - change Christian doctrine in order to forge an alliance with Islam for the overall good?

I'm answering my own question here, should have done it earlier. But it would appear that would be the only way such an alliance could be forged. How can a leader of a Christian church be thinking of such a thing?

389 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:52:15pm

re: #384 transient

Yes. An Old Earth Creationist may tell you they believe in "micro" but not "macro" evolution, and will argue for special creation of man.

OK- so if you believe in God and accept evolution calling yourself a creationist is a stretch. Is this an acceptable framework for our discussions?

390 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:52:21pm

re: #380 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Wrong. He's been paying rapt attention to his self-selected circle of acquaintances. He's living in an echo chamber.

Who was the national journalist from NYC who was "shocked" when Reagan won in '84 by a landslide because they didn't know a single person who voted for him?

391 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:52:45pm

re: #329 Mathew1977

re: #320 Charles

And you're the same person who has complained throughout this thread about being mocked.

Really? Where have I complained? You've deleted several of my posts, perhaps it was in one of those, but I'm not a complainer. I just disagree with your opinion. I've kept my thoughts clean and without vitriol or name-calling.

I'm glad you didn't claim reasoned disagreements; they require things like...umm...err...ahh...reasons. And all of the reasons (evidence), and all of the reasoning (logic), is on the other side. At least Charles' opinion is, unlike yours, buttressed by facts.

392 BBev  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:53:53pm

To bring a little fun and good muisic.AC/DC - Who made Who?

393 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:53:54pm

re: #135 buzzsawmonkey


I think that the public school system was once the glory of this country, and it needs not to be jettisoned, but to be recaptured from the leftist dogma that has all but destroyed it.

We need a school system that does teach basic math, English (and English/American literature), science, history and civics to everyone for America to remain a cohesive nation.

That would be the best solution, but you assume taking back the schools is possible. Considering how deeply embedded the leftists are in our school system, It may well be that you must kill the patient to cure the disease. Look who is running for President for Chrissake!

394 Render  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:53:58pm

re: #279 Salamantis

"Most" implies some are. I'll rest that point there. I appreciate the re-link to your comments.

Sal, with certain obvious exceptions directly related to National-Socialism, I don't ever issue a blanket condemnation of any socio-political or religious groupings.

To paraphrase Bush the Elder, "It wouldn't be prudent."

HORNS,
R

395 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:54:08pm

re: #108 jaunte

"The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in
," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said."

So Sleepy B is going to be waiting awhile? Is that what you're saying? ;)

396 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:54:20pm
397 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:54:34pm

re: #375 Ceemack

The fricking problem is that some people want your particular set of beliefs taught in science courses in our schools. And your belief is religious, not scientific; it cannot be supported by verifiable observation or experimentation.

Which means it has no fricking business in a science class.

Believe whatever you want. I have no fricking problem with that. Just don't try to have it taught as "science".

Frick, yeah.

398 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:54:49pm

re: #392 BBev

To bring a little fun and good muisic.AC/DC - Who made Who?

Okay, that's funny. The first CD I ever owned.

399 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:55:05pm

re: #390 freedombilly

Who was the national journalist from NYC who was "shocked" when Reagan won in '84 by a landslide because they didn't know a single person who voted for him?

Yeah. Great example. I remember, but don't remember who.

400 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:55:33pm

Philip Johnson has bragged about a 2000 Yale conference (which transferred some spurious authority to ID theory) even though the college was not officially involved. Congratulations to Hebrew University for managing to avoid being used in the same way.

401 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:55:50pm

re: #338 Mathew1977

re: #332 Charles

Only one post of yours was deleted, the one in which you complained about this topic being posted.

As a point of fact, you said that I complained about being mocked. So which is it?

Sal: I don't think that post - the one in which you complained about being mocked - was deleted; just the one where you claimed about this topic being posted.

Glad I could clear that up for you; no one else was confused about it.

402 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:55:53pm

re: #312 Killgore Trout

Semi OT: Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

Inter-religious dialogue makes me nervous.

The arch-shaman has descended from mere irrelevance to self-parody.

403 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:55:56pm

This is my first time posting in an ID thread. I do so just to add my $.02. I agree with Jaunte that there should be a brick wall graphic--there's too much conflict between atheists and believers, between different definitions of intelligent design, and so on.

And here I am adding to it. :)

I went to junior high in the mid-80s in a public school in the Bible Belt. When we learned about evolution, the teacher began by saying "A lot of you believe in creation as taught by the Bible. That's fine. We can't discuss that here because it's a public school, so we're going to study the science of natural selection."

It was a good class, and did nothing to convince me that God did NOT set in motion the universe billions of years ago.

So, count another lizardoid among those who say "All of the above" when asked "ID or evolution."

It's your house, Charles, and it's a treasure. This just happens to be a topic that divides a lot of people. Still, great appreciation for all you do.

404 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:56:14pm

re: #392 BBev

Made for the Stephen King movie Maximum Overdrive, where all the machines "evolved" and killed humans. Later, we find out that it was a UFO causing it all. So, not evolution, but "Malevolent Design (MD)".

405 Racer X  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:07pm

re: #396 taxfreekiller

Pass that bong over this way dude.

406 BBev  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:23pm

re: #398 freedombilly

Okay, that's funny. The first CD I ever owned.

Now I feel old.

407 Yankee Division Son  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:24pm

Wow, Joe Lieberman blasts Obama on Iraq speech..

Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.

408 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:32pm

Great post!

re: #325 transient

An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be figurative lengths of time, and the time scales given by geologists are generally correct. However, the special creation of man precludes common descent.

With this exception... No it doesn't. Even if one takes the bible literally believing Adam and Eve were the first people (or group of people), they were the first to have a divine soul. Other hominid life did not have such, a "God conciousness."

409 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:35pm

re: #386 goddessoftheclassroom

Then that's what I am, but I'm not suggesting that be taught in science class.

Then we're good!
No one is trying to "atheize" God-fearing folk, just to establish that a religiously based philosophy of creation has no place in the science classroom, or science methodology.

(Btw I enjoyed your rant about bad grammar and English usage a week or so ago, but I saw the thread far too late to weigh in. Let's just say I thought it was incredulous incredible!)

410 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:37pm

re: #402 Shiplord Kirel

The arch-shaman has descended from mere irrelevance to self-parody.

Would someone please photoshop him into a hair shirt?

411 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:51pm

(cont from #302)

Back to the ground rules again. Evidence. Objective reality. Agreement.

One of the fundamental reasons for the success of Western civilization is that we have an agreed-upon means of determining right and wrong, winners and losers, on certain aspects of "life, the universe, and everything" that doesn't involve beating each other's heads in. Oh, sometimes it comes to that, but often it doesn't have to. Because we have this general agreement--hard, objective evidence trumps everything.

Evidence. Evolution has it, in abundance. Observation. Experiment. Fossils. DNA. Geology and cosmology support the vast time frames necessary for evolution to take place. Evolution has happened, is happening, will happen, just as certainly as O.J. Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. It's OK for scientists to say, "We're right and you're wrong, we won and you lost." They've followed the ground rules of our civilization. Evolution has the evidence. Creationism and ID have none. This isn't "stifling the debate." There is no debate. The debate was over a long time ago.

But what creationists/IDers want to do is pull a Dream Team on us. They have their "bought-and-paid for" scientists (all with strong confessional interests) and their slick attorneys, and they're trying to pull one over on a potentially sympathetic (and largely scientifically illiterate) jury (the American people, state governments, local school boards, etc.) And in the process, as in the O.J. Simpson trial, they're undermining the fundamentals of our civilization. O.J.'s jury ignored the overwhelming evidence against him and voted on the basis of feelings and emotions and innuendo. They denied objective reality.

This is the sort of "thinking" that opens the way to disintegration and chaos. And what often happens after that? Someone promises to restore order by imposing a new universally agreed-upon "reality" upon society. Only this reality is whatever that person damn well wants it to be. He is under no obligation to support his vision with facts and evidence--he is not constrained by objective reality. Those who disagree with his reality, since they cannot be countered with facts and evidence, are simply silenced by one means or another--arrest, imprisonment, summary execution, forced recantation, etc. Fabricated or trumped up charges are favorite tools of tyrants.

Or, if no one manages to gain enough power to impose a new subjective "reality," since society has abandoned it's agreed-upon tools for determining objective reality, for separating truth from falsehood, for determing right and wrong, winners and losers apart from bashing heads in, for establishing a foundation to build on apart from "blood and soil" and subjective ideologies, you have endless squabbling and warfare. The end result in both cases is the same--the vast majority of people live in poverty and hunger and there is no progress, no improvement in the standard of living, no freedom.

So...do we really want to be so quick about abandoning the ground rules of our civilization?

412 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:57:57pm
413 BBev  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:58:41pm

re: #404 Lizard by the Bay

Made for the Stephen King movie Maximum Overdrive, where all the machines "evolved" and killed humans. Later, we find out that it was a UFO causing it all. So, not evolution, but "Malevolent Design (MD)".

As in all his movies the book was better evertime.

414 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:40pm

re: #404 Lizard by the Bay

Made for the Stephen King movie Maximum Overdrive, where all the machines "evolved" and killed humans. Later, we find out that it was a UFO causing it all. So, not evolution, but "Malevolent Design (MD)".

I love that movie! My favorite scene was the one where the coke machine bombards the Little League team. The berserk lawnmower is a good second though.

/I know, I am heading for rehab if Obama wins.

415 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:43pm

re: #407 Yankee Division Son

*salute* a true American

416 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:44pm

re: #403 Palandine

It's your house, Charles, and it's a treasure. This just happens to be a topic that divides a lot of people. Still, great appreciation for all you do.

I totally get that this topic divides a lot of people. But the bottom line is that if there has to be a divide, I'm on the side of science.

417 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:48pm

re: #344 Mathew1977

re: #342 Sharmuta

Accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, nor does thinking God created the universe make one a creationist.

I agree!

Sal: However, thinking that God created all the rest of the animals separately from humans, and that all of them were created as is, DOES make one a BIOLOGICAL (as opposed to cosmological) creationist.

418 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:50pm

re: #409 transient

Then we're good!
No one is trying to "atheize" God-fearing folk, just to establish that a religiously based philosophy of creation has no place in the science classroom, or science methodology.

(Btw I enjoyed your rant about bad grammar and English usage a week or so ago, but I saw the thread far too late to weigh in. Let's just say I thought it was incredulous incredible!)

Why thank you!

419 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 5:59:55pm

re: #381 jcm

All hail the Holy Prophet JCM, Bringer of Truth and Discriminator of Divine Testudine Stackage!
/

420 realwest  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:00:12pm

re: #322 Sharmuta
"I think the last thing this issue needs is more distortion- that I believe in both God and accept evolution, calling myself a creationist because of my belief in God would be just that- a distortion."
How can you believe in God if you don't believe He is the Supreme Being?
Because I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution does not seem incompatible to me at all.
I think the idea that if one believes in God one must not believe in Science is a false dichotomy. And regardless of what the Discovery Institute or anyone else says, I agree with Charles that Religion ought not to be taught as Science in the public schools and go one step further: I don't believe that Religion should be taught in Public Schools at all.

421 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:00:46pm

re: #407 Yankee Division Son

BHO considers "pancakes or waffles" a tough decision.

422 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:01:39pm

re: #421 jcm

Maple or pecan syrup? Choices choices...

423 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:01:54pm

re: #412 ploome hineni

what is the alternative?

that he take an ethical stand, and face the consequences?

the name calling, the potential violence?

who would support him?

Yes, take a stand and damn the consequences. I'm so tired to squishy leaders.

Appeasement is cowardice.

424 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:06pm

re: #403 Palandine

It was a good class, and did nothing to convince me that God did NOT set in motion the universe billions of years ago.

Thank you for that observation. My feelings exactly.

425 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:12pm

re: #409 transient

Did you see it when she misspelled ... what was it ... characterization?

/damn well better believe I ran spellcheck on this one!

426 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:16pm

re: #389 Sharmuta

OK- so if you believe in God and accept evolution calling yourself a creationist is a stretch. Is this an acceptable framework for our discussions?

Yes. If someone accepts evolution, including common descent of humans from primate ancestors, I would not call him/her a creationist. There are plenty of people who who believe God set the evolutionary ball rolling. Not provable or falsifiable, but also not (for the purposes of evo debate), a creationist.

427 auldtrafford  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:44pm

Found it: Yahya!

Video about a third-page down.

428 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:54pm

re: #413 BBev

In this case, it really was his movie. It's the only film SK has ever directed, to my knowledge, although he's been pretty hands-on with some of the miniseries made from his work. But yeah, "Trucks" was still better. At least Maximum Overdrive managed to convey SK's sense of humor to film. The only other previous film from SK material that did this correctly was George A. Romero's "Creepshow". Don't get me started on movies; we'll be here all night. :)

429 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:02:55pm

re: #421 jcm

BHO considers "pancakes or waffles" a tough decision.

Waffles are just too metrosexual, with a whiff of eurotrashery about them. Give me good old chuck-wagon flapjacks any day.

430 freedombilly  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:10pm

re: #406 BBev

Now I feel old.

I did say CD and not album, if that makes you feel any better!

431 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:11pm

re: #425 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Did you see it when she misspelled ... what was it ... characterization?

/damn well better believe I ran spellcheck on this one!

Ahem.

A typo is NOT a misspelling!

That is all...

432 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:26pm
433 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:30pm

re: #392 BBev

To bring a little fun and good muisic.AC/DC - Who made Who?

Great choice! One of my favs!

434 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:39pm

re: #387 Sharmuta

Wait- is Mathew working towards his martyr points?

No, so far he seems to be practicing his martial arts, particularly the parts that involve dodging and misdirection.

435 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:03:55pm
436 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:04:03pm

re: #419 Slumbering Behemoth

All hail the Holy Prophet JCM, Bringer of Truth and Discriminator of Divine Testudine Stackage!
/

Somebody has to show the world what heathen apostate infidels at The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are!

In the end they will know the truth of the Shellbacks!

/

437 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:04:30pm

re: #392 BBev

I have the secret hots for Brian Johnson... don't tell anyone.

438 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:01pm

re: #429 Shiplord Kirel

Waffles are just too metrosexual, with a whiff of eurotrashery about them. Give me good old chuck-wagon flapjacks any day.

Can I have Eggs Benedict?

439 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:10pm

re: #407 Yankee Division Son

Would that Senator McCain were so eloquent.

440 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:12pm

re: #437 marjoriemoon

I miss Bon. :(

441 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:23pm

re: #401 Salamantis

Sal: I don't think that post - the one in which you complained about being mocked - was deleted; just the one where you claimed about this topic being posted.

Glad I could clear that up for you; no one else was confused about it.

Sal, I'm sure you are a great person; one with whom I'd gladly share an adult beverage and chat.

But please don't claim to speak for everyone else, like you just did.

Charles stated that I complained about being mocked, which I did not.

I cleared it up, not you.

442 melinwy  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:36pm

re: #260 realwest


very well said, thank you, that was something that I was thinking but couldn't quite get into a coherent write down of it.
and I hope your pain is resolved quickly!

443 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:40pm

re: #420 realwest

My point was, realwest, that in these conversations "creationist" has a different meaning then just a person who thinks God created the universe. If you accept evolution, then you're not a creationist by their standards as they reject evolution.

444 wolfie  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:43pm

re: #311 EC Marm

I'm not so sure about creationism and ID being the cause for the slippage. There used to be a respect for science is schools that I don't believe there is any longer. I'm not positive that it's related to the goals in 'No Child Left Behind' which is concerned not one iota with science, but that is my strong suspicion. If that is the case, then any two bit book publisher than can produce a cheap textbook on any charlatan topic should be able to have a field day. It's a shame.

The decline in American scores in science and math dates back to the late sixties, or the early seventies at the latest, long before the Disco boys and Bush were doing their thing. There are undoubtedly several causes for this slow and steady decline, but "creationism" and NCLB are not among them.
That being said, it is almost certain that adopting the ID agenda can only make things worse.

445 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:45pm

re: #431 goddessoftheclassroom

Ahem.

A typo is NOT a misspelling!

That is all...

*slink*
*hide*

446 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:45pm

re: #429 Shiplord Kirel

Waffles are just too metrosexual, with a whiff of eurotrashery about them. Give me good old chuck-wagon flapjacks any day.

Ahh, with real maple syrup, cowboy coffee, bacon and scrambled eggs....

Hey, I just had that on my camping trip, real deal over the fire!

447 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:55pm
448 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:05:58pm

re: #381 jcm

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Pfftt!
Too much work.

1. Jump to conclusion...
Turtles all the way down!

See, much less hassle!
/

Sal: Lately, they're beginning to look like post turtles...;~)

449 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:06:22pm
450 Yankee Division Son  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:06:36pm

re: #439 Bobblehead

Would that Senator McCain were so eloquent.

Indeeed. McCain/Lieberman '08?

451 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:07:04pm

re: #449 taxfreekiller

In many schools in New York City, they do not teach ID or Creation or science, they just collect the guns each morning and pray.

452 jegjr  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:07:04pm

Charles,

Do you really think that, Israel as a whole, is anti-creationism? Gimme a break.

453 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:07:07pm

re: #436 jcm

Somebody has to show the world what heathen apostate infidels at The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are!

In the end they will know the truth of the Shellbacks!

/

I think the ID thread has deteriorated into sanity.

/

454 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:07:42pm

re: #453 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I think the ID thread has deteriorated into sanity.

/

It evolved.

455 realwest  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:08:02pm

re: #443 Sharmuta OK, got it.

456 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:08:20pm

re: #382 rightymouse

Agreed. At my son's previous Catholic School, human created global warming as science, was shoved in his face and his father and I had to give him facts that they did not. He's in a secular private school now.


I taught science in a Catholic school. The guidelines (in early ed, anyway) were absolutely pathetic, in some cases barely even a paragraph. It was basically left up to the teacher to decide the entire curriculum for the year. I am sure (hope, anyway) that 99% of Catholic school teachers do a wonderful job given such tremendous leeway, but there are more than a few leftists that push their own agenda, including GW.
I'm more concerned with the general shrugging of shoulders, the 'so what' attitude about a subject which is so important. It's a shame that a lot of students won't have the opportunity to "vote with their feet" as in your case and have a choice in what school their child attends.
*subliminal message* Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers. *subliminal message*
I wonder what McCain has to say on the education topic? The only thing noteworthy about Barry and education that I have heard is that he seems to want sex-education extended to pre-schoolers.

457 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:08:20pm

re: #436 jcm

As an admirer of the Church of the FSM I have one quesiton for the "shellbacks" are they sea turtles or land dwellers?

458 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:09:29pm

re: #441 Mathew1977

Sal, I'm sure you are a great person; one with whom I'd gladly share an adult beverage and chat.

But please don't claim to speak for everyone else, like you just did.

Charles stated that I complained about being mocked, which I did not.

I cleared it up, not you.

No one else was confused because your posts complaining about being mocked are still here for all to read.

459 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:09:37pm

re: #449 taxfreekiller

In many schools in New York City, they do not teach ID or Creation or science, they just collect the guns each morning and pray.

DAMMIT, I was eating!
It's all OVER the damned place!

460 marjoriemoon  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:00pm

re: #440 Lizard by the Bay

I miss Bon. :(

Well it's been awhile... me too.

461 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:10pm

re: #454 VegasRick

It evolved.

Oops. I stand corrected!

462 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:29pm

re: #461 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Oops. I stand corrected!

Not by me!

463 DistantThunder  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:36pm

Jesus was a divider, not a uniter in the traditional sense.

Marketplace of ideas, winners and losers and all that. Better than the alternative which is PC correctness, and self-censorship.

464 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:40pm

re: #452 jegjr

Where is that stated?

465 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:10:55pm

re: #425 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Did you see it when she misspelled ... what was it ... characterization?

/damn well better believe I ran spellcheck on this one!

I am probably as nitpicky as goddessoftheclassroom when it comes to spelling and usage, but I almost never correct people (okay, sometimes in jest) because as you noted, people make typos. Lack of typing skills (or refusal to use spell check) does not equate to lack of intelligence, and just as importantly, does not refute the argument.

Pointing out lack of typing skill is diversionary. That said, anyone who knows they are terrible spellers should use spell check, because too many errors does make one appear less intelligent (bias).

466 rightymouse  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:11:26pm

re: #420 realwest

I don't believe that Religion should be taught in Public Schools at all.

Amen.

Even in the secular private school my son attends, his world religion class last year was fluffy and lop-sided. He learned more about about every highly represented (via population) religion on earth except Christianity.

467 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:11:36pm

re: #446 jcm

Ahh, with real maple syrup, cowboy coffee, bacon and scrambled eggs....

Hey, I just had that on my camping trip, real deal over the fire!

The unbeatable choice for supper is red beans, cornbread and fried potatoes, though expect some jostling for the upwind spots at the campfire later on.

468 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:12:08pm

re: #462 VegasRick

Not by me!

Yep.
It "evolved" rather than "deteriorated".
That fits far better.

469 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:12:33pm

re: #137 jaunte

Sometimes you need a good brick wall graphic.

Was that my cue? Sorry, I'm late- here.

470 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:13:21pm

re: #467 Shiplord Kirel

The unbeatable choice for supper is red beans, cornbread and fried potatoes, though expect some jostling for the upwind spots at the campfire later on.

That reminds me of something.

471 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:14:55pm

Excellent posts, Tigger2005, thank you.

472 BignJames  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:15:04pm

re: #467 Shiplord Kirel


campfire?

473 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:15:04pm

re: #468 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yep.
It "evolved" rather than "deteriorated".
That fits far better.

re: #470 Thanos

That reminds me of something.

I think it just deteriorated again.

474 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:15:14pm

re: #470 Thanos

Still hilarious after all these years.

475 The Verde[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:15:16pm
476 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:15:58pm

re: #370 Dan G.

And you would be wrong or blatently lying. ID has been demonstrated to be nothing more than a piss-poor "Find and Replace" fraud that tries to make biblical creationism look like science in a blantant attack on the 1st Ammendment to the U.S. Constition.

Matt, what is your oppinion of the 1st Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution?

What do you mean, what is my opinion of the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion.

I know, I know, ID isn't a theory, blah, blah, blah...

We're in a stand-off where each side posits the other is full of dogma.

No amount of rhetorical spin or supposed scientific evidence will convince me that man evolved from a simple organism.

Darwin had no access to the technology we have now that allows us to actually view what is going on in a single cell.

Applying the idea that individual species change over time to man evolving from some sort of primordial soup is a stretch at best.

I enjoy this forum and although my opinion varies from others on this topic, I am a Lizard first and foremost and really just want to eradicate radical Muslim terrorists like the Charles and the majority of you all.

I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common.

477 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:16:03pm

re: #457 Dan G.

As an admirer of the Church of the FSM I have one quesiton for the "shellbacks" are they sea turtles or land dwellers?

They would be pasta shells, no?

478 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:16:50pm

re: #435 ploome hineni

Well I'll be damned. Muslim partents who care more about their children than about killing Jews. They DO exist.

But I think that is a private school, no? Private schools are growing so much precisely for the reason that public schools are mostly crap these days. And I think they will someday be the main source of primary education, and public schools will exist to give union teachers an excuse to draw a check.

479 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:17:00pm

re: #436 jcm

Somebody has to show the world what heathen apostate infidels at The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are!

In the end they will know the truth of the Shellbacks!
/

Shellbacks, I love it. I also hear tell that those cretins who've been touched by the noodley appendage have taken to eating turtle soup during their depraved rituals.

/HERETICS!

480 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:17:03pm

re: #465 transient

*grin*
I was twisting goddess' tail. You had to have been there.

A few days ago, we'd been discussing her relationship, as teacher, with her students. She made a typo, transposing a couple of letters. I immediately said we'd text-message all her students about it. This was a reprise.

/now waiting for the reprisAL

481 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:17:05pm

re: #469 Sharmuta

Nice wall; high five!

482 PrairieWind  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:17:17pm

There is nothing about the "Big Bang" that would force someone to conclude "atheism" is the only metaphysical belief. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If one happens to believe in a "Creator" God, then
obviously created things must have a beginning.

I think the biggest fear people of religion have with science is it wants to put restrictions on the tenets of a particular religion. For example, if one must believe that the universe and everything in it was created in, literally, seven days then science has bad news.

Most religions were formulated long before "science" ever got a foothold. But even then, and before then, people still looked at their everyday world in terms of practicalities. The trouble with religions is they closed up shop centuries ago whereas all other human endeavors have had to grow and adapt. Science is now threatening those very religions because they simply refuse to budge from wrongheaded notions.

One thing we know for certain -- this universe came into being with the parameters necessary to not only beget living organisms but intelligent lifeforms, as well. That alone is amazing, even to some scientists who do not consider themselves "religious" in the conventional sense. That should inspire metaphysical questions in just about anyone but, of course, there is no imperative that be the case.

As to metaphysical questions, science will never be able to provide an ultimate answer. All it can do is place boundaries on religious tenets and even then only if people choose to believe one over the other. But ID is bad business for schools. Maybe what needs to change is not science curriculum in schools but the religions, themselves. To paraphrase a saying, if a tenet offend the science then cast it out. It is not wise to argue with The Creator over how He chose to create things.

483 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:17:25pm

re: #412 ploome hineni

what is the alternative?

that he take an ethical stand, and face the consequences?

the name calling, the potential violence?

who would support him?

yes, and you know as well as I do, what this leader of faith should do is take an ethical and moral stance, face the consequences.

I suspect such people would find more support than they realize.

It is, however, such a very very difficult thing to do, when there are "alternatives" that are easier and more politically correct.

It is very frustrating to try to raise a child to do the right thing because it is the right thing, when the right thing is often the most difficult of all possible choices, when there are church leaders such as this.

Rant off.

484 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:18:35pm

re: #480 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*grin*
I was twisting goddess' tail. You had to have been there.

A few days ago, we'd been discussing her relationship, as teacher, with her students. She made a typo, transposing a couple of letters. I immediately said we'd text-message all her students about it. This was a reprise.

/now waiting for the reprisAL

(the picture more than the caption...)

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

485 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:19:13pm

re: #429 Shiplord Kirel

Waffles are just too metrosexual, with a whiff of eurotrashery about them. Give me good old chuck-wagon flapjacks any day.

can i have fresh (locally grown) blueberries in mine?
i don't need real maple syrup, i can make do w/ mrs. buttersworth etc.

486 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:19:22pm

re: #473 VegasRick

I think it just deteriorated again.

Yes, it doesn't take much around here.

487 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:19:52pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common.

And who created the Wedge?

That would be the same group that's pretty actively trying to split the Anglican church, that would be the same folks who created all the controversy over Terry Schaivo. That would be the Discovery Institute.

488 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:19:56pm

re: #416 Charles

I totally get that this topic divides a lot of people. But the bottom line is that if there has to be a divide, I'm on the side of science.

Fair enough. Just wanted to throw out there that my public school taught the science, I still believe in my heart and in my mind that God created the universe and everything in it, and I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a very good university.

Those of us who believe in some form of creationism aren't necessarily holding back the floodgates of scientific discovery in the US.

I think my school had a good method--acknowledge that there are other, honestly and firmly held understandings of the evidence, and then teaching the topic scientifically. Being a contrarian, I probably would have gone full 6-day creationist if the teacher had said "A bunch of ignorant people believe in creationism. They're wrong. Open your books."

Again, thanks.

489 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:20:36pm
490 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:21:03pm

re: #487 Thanos

And who created the Wedge?

Charles.

491 rightymouse  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:21:08pm

re: #456 EC Marm

I taught science in a Catholic school. The guidelines (in early ed, anyway) were absolutely pathetic, in some cases barely even a paragraph. It was basically left up to the teacher to decide the entire curriculum for the year. I am sure (hope, anyway) that 99% of Catholic school teachers do a wonderful job given such tremendous leeway, but there are more than a few leftists that push their own agenda, including GW.
I'm more concerned with the general shrugging of shoulders, the 'so what' attitude about a subject which is so important. It's a shame that a lot of students won't have the opportunity to "vote with their feet" as in your case and have a choice in what school their child attends.
*subliminal message* Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers. *subliminal message*
I wonder what McCain has to say on the education topic? The only thing noteworthy about Barry and education that I have heard is that he seems to want sex-education extended to pre-schoolers.

His previous school was also a convent and most of his teachers until the 5th grade were nuns. He really needed a lot of the early nurturing they could provide, but once it became academic oriented and yet fluffy - as in the global warming nonsense (among other problems), my poor kid started to lose it.

He's in a terrific private secular school now - this will be his 3rd year there.

My son is autistic, but high-functioning. Can hold his own academically with other LD kids who have ADD, ADHD, etc.

Ohio has a tuition program for kids diagnosed with PDD. It's the next best thing to a voucher program. Would love to see it expanded.

492 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:21:33pm

re: #484 goddessoftheclassroom

(the picture more than the caption...)

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

LOL -- Yes!

Now that cat! It's not hard to discern why he/she is really ... (you-know-what).

493 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:21:52pm

re: #457 Dan G.

As an admirer of the Church of the FSM I have one quesiton for the "shellbacks" are they sea turtles or land dwellers?

I will tell you NOTHING til you repent of believing in noodlely appendages.

But since you are a lizard, I show you the suppressed Hubbel PROOF!

494 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:22:20pm
495 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:22:37pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

"cdesign proponentists" You lose.

496 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:22:41pm
497 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:22:53pm

re: #488 Palandine

Fair enough. Just wanted to throw out there that my public school taught the science, I still believe in my heart and in my mind that God created the universe and everything in it, and I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a very good university.

Those of us who believe in some form of creationism aren't necessarily holding back the floodgates of scientific discovery in the US.

I think my school had a good method--acknowledge that there are other, honestly and firmly held understandings of the evidence, and then teaching the topic scientifically. Being a contrarian, I probably would have gone full 6-day creationist if the teacher had said "A bunch of ignorant people believe in creationism. They're wrong. Open your books."

Again, thanks.

Prepare for the fury, Palandine.

You are clearly stupid, based on the above posts.

You are also dangerous and responsible for America falling behind in science.

You may also be on par with a Mulslim Fundamentalist.

498 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:02pm

re: #486 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yes, it doesn't take much around here.

You expect it to improve?

499 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:25pm

re: #497 Mathew1977

Prepare for the fury, Palandine.

You are clearly stupid, based on the above posts.

You are also dangerous and responsible for America falling behind in science.

You may also be on par with a Mulslim Fundamentalist.

Whining again, I see.

500 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:32pm
No amount of rhetorical spin or supposed scientific evidence will convince me that man evolved from a simple organism.

So long as you refuse to look at or accept any of the evidence, this is not a surprise.

Darwin had no access to the technology we have now that allows us to actually view what is going on in a single cell.

Darwin's limitations only make his conclusions more impressive, since over a century's worth of scientific research has only added more and more evidence to support his findings. As opposed to some "alternative theories" which have no need for evidence, and never will have any.

Applying the idea that individual species change over time to man evolving from some sort of primordial soup is a stretch at best.

Says you. And your qualifications to teach science are...?

501 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:36pm
502 perdiem  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:36pm

Intelligent design requires you to be a Christian Scientist. God created cancer,war,tooth decay, evil. Do NOT try to cure it.

503 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:23:44pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

So.... you think Charles shouldn't focus on what he'd like to focus on, just what you want him to focus upon?

504 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:24:06pm

re: #493 jcm

I will tell you NOTHING til you repent of believing in noodlely appendages.

But since you are a lizard, I show you the suppressed Hubbel PROOF!

Damn! For a second I thought it was Killgore's new avatar!

505 rw in san diego  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:25:33pm

re: #259 Mathew1977

re: #259 Mathew1977

What's so dangerous about saying, 'This group believes this about our origins and this other group believes this. Discuss.'

There's nothing dangerous about the discussion as long as it doesn't take place in a science class.

/This is getting tedious

506 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:25:45pm

re: #499 Charles

Whining again, I see.

I thought it was funny, not whining.

But I suppose it depends on your perspective.

507 freetoken  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:25:51pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion.

I know, I know, ID isn't a theory, blah, blah, blah...

We're in a stand-off where each side posits the other is full of dogma.

Did you read the judge's ruling in the Dover, PA case?


No amount of rhetorical spin or supposed scientific evidence will convince me that man evolved from a simple organism.

And therein is the problem. You are unteachable. It is not mere "rhetorical spin" that you are rejecting... you are also rejecting the straightforward conclusion of the legal case in Dover, PA; you are also rejecting accurate definitions of words ("ID", "theory", etc.); you are also rejecting any help that the more patient and kind hearted lizards who would offer to help you answer your questions.

508 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:26:05pm

re: #497 Mathew1977

Don't draw me into you fight, Matthew...

509 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:26:40pm

re: #503 Sharmuta

So.... you think Charles shouldn't focus on what he'd like to focus on, just what you want him to focus upon?

Can we take a deep breath, please.

I'm getting accused of whining, but there seems to be plenty going around.

510 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:27:02pm

re: #498 jcm

You expect it to improve?

LOL!

Just how many gigabytes is that text file of links that you've got?

511 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:27:32pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion.

I know, I know, ID isn't a theory, blah, blah, blah...

We're in a stand-off where each side posits the other is full of dogma.

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

For bonus points, use the following criteria:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common.

Did someone say "wedge"?

512 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:27:37pm

re: #488 Palandine

Fair enough. Just wanted to throw out there that my public school taught the science, I still believe in my heart and in my mind that God created the universe and everything in it, and I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from a very good university.

This is not a debate about what you believe, or if you have the right to believe it, or if you're smart or not for believing it. This is a debate about what is or is not science, and what belongs in a classroom in a society that is institutionally secular, with religion rightly relegated to one's private life.

513 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:27:39pm

re: #508 Palandine

Don't draw me into you fight, Matthew...

Perhaps my sarcasm didn't translate. I agree with you.

For reference, please see the last 500 posts.

514 Dan G.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:28:00pm

Nite all.

515 freetoken  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:29:42pm

Perhaps this has been posted before... I might have missed it.... but the National Academy of Sciences printed a book this year to help address this problem:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

You can download the whole book for free but you have to register. You can download a summary pamphlet without registering.

Perhaps it might be a useful resource for some.

516 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:29:54pm

re: #510 pre-Boomer Marine brat

LOL!

Just how many gigabytes is that text file of links that you've got?

I get an idea, do a quick image search, copy the link and.....

517 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:29:54pm

re: #497 Mathew1977

Prepare for the fury, Palandine.

You are clearly stupid, based on the above posts.

You are also dangerous and responsible for America falling behind in science.

You may also be on par with a Mulslim Fundamentalist.

Yep. Join me Palandine! Come over to the dark side!
LOL!

518 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:30:08pm

Who will defend the waffling political tactics of the Discovery Institute, who can't legally say what they want to achieve, and can't politically distance themselves from anyone who might help support them?

519 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:30:12pm

re: #513 Mathew1977

You used my quote as a cudgel to beat others, which I never intended it to be.

520 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:31:16pm

re: #393 maddogg

That would be the best solution, but you assume taking back the schools is possible. Considering how deeply embedded the leftists are in our school system, It may well be that you must kill the patient to cure the disease. Look who is running for President for Chrissake!

"mad" -

The "problem" with "Public - a/k/a - Government" Schools can be summed up and solved with one concept - PHONICS! - know the sounds, be able to read them. It is THE KEY to learning language - ANY LANGUAGE. "Look/Say" is learning English as if it were CHINESE. for what it is worth, I have been reading in the "ROMAN" Alphabet since I was three (3) years old - AND - in the Cyrillic (Russian), Greek, and Hebrew alphabets when my age was still in "Single Digits." For that I have to thank my mother's older sister Martha - a Woman educated far beyond what was expected in the 1930's/40's. As luck would have it, she never had the teaching career she trained for. Of the three sisters - my mom had the first child - ME. I was the beneficiary of that situation. This post is in part my attempt to "pay back" for the privilege.

-S-

521 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:31:17pm

re: #518 jaunte

Who will defend the waffling political tactics of the Discovery Institute, who can't legally say what they want to achieve, and can't politically distance themselves from anyone who might help support them?

I will not.

On the other hand, I get a bit prickly when others start the, "How can you believe..." questions.

522 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:31:33pm

re: #509 Mathew1977

Did you or did you not say, "I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common."?

So- are you not in essence telling Charles what you think he should be focusing on?

And who created the Wedge?

Charles.

Are you a "shoot the messenger" type?

523 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:31:52pm

re: #507 freetoken

And therein is the problem. You are unteachable. It is not mere "rhetorical spin" that you are rejecting... you are also rejecting the straightforward conclusion of the legal case in Dover, PA; you are also rejecting accurate definitions of words ("ID", "theory", etc.); you are also rejecting any help that the more patient and kind hearted lizards who would offer to help you answer your questions.

Well, gosh, thanks so much for the 'help'.

The elitism and condescension is palpable here.

The court system also said O.J. Simpson didn't murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Give me a break!

524 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:32:17pm

re: #490 Mathew1977

Charles.

Did you click the link? Did you read the document?

No?

Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute have created every divisive controversy that's split the religious right for the past decade, you need to do some reading about who is behind the hysteria of some of these issues.

525 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:32:24pm

re: #520 Dr. Shalit

"mad" -

The "problem" with "Public - a/k/a - Government" Schools can be summed up and solved with one concept - PHONICS! - know the sounds, be able to read them. It is THE KEY to learning language - ANY LANGUAGE. "Look/Say" is learning English as if it were CHINESE. for what it is worth, I have been reading in the "ROMAN" Alphabet since I was three (3) years old - AND - in the Cyrillic (Russian), Greek, and Hebrew alphabets when my age was still in "Single Digits." For that I have to thank my mother's older sister Martha - a Woman educated far beyond what was expected in the 1930's/40's. As luck would have it, she never had the teaching career she trained for. Of the three sisters - my mom had the first child - ME. I was the beneficiary of that situation. This post is in part my attempt to "pay back" for the privilege.

-S-

You mean the problem is NOT teaching phonics, right?

526 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:32:44pm

re: #519 Palandine

You used my quote as a cudgel to beat others, which I never intended it to be.

Pour yourself and earl gray and take warm bath.

527 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:32:45pm

re: #516 jcm

I get an idea, do a quick image search, copy the link and.....

You're FAST. I figured you had a database.

528 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:33:28pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion.

I know, I know, ID isn't a theory, blah, blah, blah...

ID is not a scientific theory. See above posts, specifically slumbering behemoth #233.

After US courts ruled that creationism could not be taught in science class, because it was religion (violating the 1st Amendment, not to mention scientific methodology), creationists cut and pasted their books, introducing ID instead.

In the Dover vs. Kitzmiller case, the (conservative appointed) judge ruled that ID was religion, not science, that the creationists were employing deceptive tactics, and that ID could not be taught in the science classroom.

What you want to believe has little bearing on these facts, or on federal law.

We're in a stand-off where each side posits the other is full of dogma.

Mm, no. The difference is that evolution has 150 years of rigorous research behind it. ID has no scientific research behind it. Period.

No amount of rhetorical spin or supposed scientific evidence will convince me that man evolved from a simple organism.

It's a free country. You have a right to your beliefs. You emphatically do not have the right to teach nonscientific beliefs in a science classroom.

Darwin had no access to the technology we have now that allows us to actually view what is going on in a single cell.

Quite true. Since Darwin's time, much research has been done in different fields of science. Darwin's theory has been refined, but all the essential elements have held up. That's why we still talk about Darwin, and not, say Lamarck.

Applying the idea that individual species change over time to man evolving from some sort of primordial soup is a stretch at best.

Only if you don't read or understand the science behind it. It's actually quite well supported by decades of scientific research, in multiple fields.

You might want to do a little reading and educate yourself before you make up your mind. Or is it already too late?

529 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:33:36pm

re: #523 Mathew1977

The court system also said O.J. Simpson didn't murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Give me a break!

No, the court said he could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. And give us all a break.

530 reno911  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:33:36pm

All I want to know is how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

The answer to that is the answer we seek.

531 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:33:49pm

Art Break!

Good part starts a minute in....

532 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:12pm

re: #518 jaunte

Not me, I fear.

533 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:14pm

re: #524 Thanos

Did you click the link? Did you read the document?

No?

Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute have created every divisive controversy that's split the religious right for the past decade, you need to do some reading about who is behind the hysteria of some of these issues.

Yes, I did, but it was after I posted my comment.

And my use of the word 'wedge' was inadvertent. I was not aware of the Discovery Institute report contained in the link.

Again, I was attempting to be humorous.

Perhaps I will cease.

534 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:28pm

how many i.d. believers have even studied evolution? or been able to look at it objectively?
it seems like they just see the word, and feel it is an attack on religion.
do they have any idea what evolution means? that it can be compatible w/ religion?

535 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:29pm

re: #206 marjoriemoon

Sorry I probably should have directed my above comment (196) here rather than at Killgore :) Kinda hard to keep track.

What school is teaching scientology?

I'll have to re-research this for you. They have private schools that teach their brain-wash but to find a specific example of my claim I will need to look. If you can't wait [Link: www.clambake.org...] should provide a few newspaper examples.

My problem has always been with the way the cult treats its own members (not just the apostates). The crazy new-age aspect is less disturbing than the fact that L. Ron Hubbard started his own "Navy" and his "tech" has directly lead to the deaths of dozens of church members. The lawsuits, the unexplained deaths and the enormous amount of money that the religion has stolen from its own followers in the name of self-betterment all make it particularly unattractive to me.

536 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:54pm

re: #521 goddessoftheclassroom

How can you believe that you're not my favorite Lizard?

537 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:34:55pm

re: #525 goddessoftheclassroom

You mean the problem is NOT teaching phonics, right?

"goddess"

ABSOTUTELY YES!

-S-

538 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:35:11pm

re: #401 Salamantis

Sal: I don't think that post - the one in which you complained about being mocked - was deleted; just the one where you claimed about this topic being posted.

Glad I could clear that up for you; no one else was confused about it.

Sal, I'm sure you are a great person; one with whom I'd gladly share an adult beverage and chat.

But please don't claim to speak for everyone else, like you just did.

Charles stated that I complained about being mocked, which I did not.

I cleared it up, not you.

re: #441 Mathew1977

Sal: Well, you complained about name-calling in #60:

Those who believe the theory of ID are now stupid?
Name-calling? That's what passes for debate now?

And about being condescended to in #309:

All smug condescension aside, I reject the notion that you have the equivalent of videos of sperm entering the egg to prove man evolved from apes.

Now, those may not precisely be complaints about mockery, but they're close enough for government work.

I also note that Charles updinged the comment of mine that you just referenced, so he must've thought I did a not unreasonable job of speaking on his behalf.

539 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:35:35pm

re: #526 Mathew1977

Pour yourself and earl gray and take warm bath.

You sure know how to win friends and influence people, Mathew with one t.

540 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:35:37pm

re: #530 reno911

All I want to know is how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

The answer to that is the answer we seek.

42?

Wait, wrong answer... ;)

541 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:35:48pm

re: #536 pre-Boomer Marine brat

How can you believe that you're not my favorite Lizard?

Unhand the lady!
You cad!

542 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:36:01pm

re: #521 goddessoftheclassroom

As well you should.

Religious belief is a serious matter. It's also deeply personal, and it is offensive to treat it as something deserving of ridicule.

543 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:36:57pm

re: #542 Dianna

As well you should.

Religious belief is a serious matter. It's also deeply personal, and it is offensive to treat it as something deserving of ridicule.

Don't feel bad I am a fundy muzzy now!

544 JamesWI  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:37:06pm

re: #497 Mathew1977

Prepare for the fury, Palandine.

You are clearly stupid, based on the above posts.

You are also dangerous and responsible for America falling behind in science.

You may also be on par with a Mulslim Fundamentalist.

Martyr points!

545 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:37:13pm
546 reno911  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:37:27pm

re: #540 Palandine

23.

547 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:38:20pm

re: #531 jcm

Art Break!

Good part starts a minute in....

That's Neat!

548 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:38:30pm

re: #538 Salamantis

re: #401 Salamantis

Now, those may not precisely be complaints about mockery, but they're close enough for government work.

I also note that Charles updinged the comment of mine that you just referenced, so he must've thought I did a not unreasonable job of speaking on his behalf.

Whine: to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way

I maintain that my comments were not whining, but rather my straightforward observation.

Opinions vary.

And congratulations on Charles updinging your comment.

I fear I am irretrievably on Charles' shit list, even though this is the only topic in which I find myself in disagreement with him.

549 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:38:50pm

re: #536 pre-Boomer Marine brat

How can you believe that you're not my favorite Lizard?

MWAH!

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

550 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:38:56pm

Humor break...

Hot Brass Dance!

551 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:39:17pm

re: #541 jcm

Unhand the lady!
You cad!

That was no lady, that was a cat!

552 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:39:35pm

re: #534 nyc redneck

do they have any idea what evolution means?


No, they don't have even a basic understanding of what evolution is about. They only have a characiture of evolution fed to them by dishonest preachers.

553 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:39:42pm

re: #545 buzzsawmonkey

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, primordial soup.

And a primordial corned beef sandwich.

watch those coacervates swimming in the soupie.
they might not agree w/ you.

554 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:02pm

re: #550 jcm

Humor break...

Hot Brass Dance!

I hear how many versions of that a day?
LOL!

555 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:16pm

re: #540 Palandine

He'd chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would,
If a woodchuck could chuck wood.

556 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:16pm

re: #554 jcm

I hear how many versions of that a day?
LOL!

Wrong quote....

557 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:21pm
558 JamesWI  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:25pm

re: #544 JamesWI

Martyr points!

PS - since other's are much better at (repeatedly) explaining the basic facts, I will stick to pointing out Jaunte's martyr points where they are so earned.

559 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:29pm

re: #549 goddessoftheclassroom

MWAH!

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

I hear how many versions of that a day?
LOL!

560 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:43pm

re: #549 goddessoftheclassroom

MWAH!

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

Great! A really GOOD ONE!

561 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:40:49pm

re: #119 Mathew1977

I would contend that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are just that: theories.

Which proves to the universe that you don't understand the meaning of the word.

562 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:13pm

re: #540 Palandine

42?

Wait, wrong answer... ;)

No, right answer.

Wrong question.

563 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:21pm

re: #509 Mathew1977

Did you or did you not say, "I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common."?

So- are you not in essence telling Charles what you think he should be focusing on?

And who created the Wedge?


Charles.

Are you a "shoot the messenger" type?

*Still waiting for an answer*

564 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:22pm

re: #543 VegasRick

I will not mock their faith; I will, however, oppose its incompatible with modernity practices.

565 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:30pm

re: #416 Charles

I totally get that this topic divides a lot of people. But the bottom line is that if there has to be a divide, I'm on the side of science.



Science doesn't accept the notion of a creator because there is no way to prove it in a lab or explain it in a scientific theory.

566 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:39pm

re: #537 Dr. Shalit

"goddess"

ABSOTUTELY YES!

-S-

I completely agree with you! The WORST thing in American public education was the fad "whole language" and the throwing out of phonics. A few years ago, elementary teachers were FORBIDDEN to teach phonics! Thankfully, the pendulum has swung back, but the the damage to a generation of students was devastating.

567 freetoken  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:47pm

re: #523 Mathew1977

Well, gosh, thanks so much for the 'help'.

The elitism and condescension is palpable here.

If you consider telling someone the truth "elitism" then so be it, but as you have already demonstrated that you play fast and loose with the definition of words you could be meaning anything here...

As for "condescension"... you are confusing that with "impatience". Put simply, you just have not bothered to spend the time reading the previous entries by Charles, or followed some of the better links provided by contributors here.

568 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:50pm

re: #546 reno911

23.

Heh. Not a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fan, eh?

/more controversial than Oolon Colophid's trilogy of theological blockbusters: Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway?

569 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:41:55pm

re: #561 Naso Tang

Which proves to the universe that you don't understand the meaning of the word.

One could argue that since the universe is not reading LGF right now, it proves no such thing.

Do you understand the meaning of the word?

570 MigueldowninMexico  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:42:04pm

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

571 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:42:05pm

re: #548 Mathew1977

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread,(and it does happen) and am highly unlikely to change any minds with my brilliant argument, that skipping to the next thread is often helpful.

572 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:42:10pm

re: #559 jcm

Wait until she puts the "that was no lady" exchange together.

*cringing under the desk*

573 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:42:20pm
574 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:42:35pm

re: #563 Sharmuta

re: #509 Mathew1977

Did you or did you not say, "I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common."?

So- are you not in essence telling Charles what you think he should be focusing on?

Are you a "shoot the messenger" type?

*Still waiting for an answer*

I'm sorry, I missed your question the first time.

No, I am not a "shoot the messenger" type.

My comment was meant to be humorous.

575 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:10pm

Feds: Bellevue Man Was In Nazi 'Mobile Killing Unit'

SEATTLE -- Federal authorities say an 86-year-old Bellevue man participated in the mass murder of thousands of Serbians during World War II, and they want a judge to revoke his U.S. citizenship.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle said Peter Egner joined the Nazis in German-occupied Belgrade, Serbia, in April 1941, and was part of a "mobile killing unit" that claimed more than 17,000 victims, mostly Jewish men, women and children, in 1941 and 1942.
576 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:24pm

re: #550 jcm

I've had hot brass go down my shirt - he has all my sympathy!

Man, that was funny!

577 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:25pm

re: #545 buzzsawmonkey

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, primordial soup.

And a primordial corned beef sandwich.


Your rye sense of humor would be the perfect accompaniment for that sandwich. While I'm sure the muslims created the sandwich, according to Wiki it was invented by a Jew:

The first form of sandwich is attributed to the ancient Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, who is said to have put meat from the Paschal lamb and bitter herbs inside matzo (or flat,unleavened bread) during Passover. The filling between the matzos served as a reminder to Israelites of their forced labor constructing Egyptian buildings. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
578 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:31pm

re: #552 Killgore Trout

No, they don't have even a basic understanding of what evolution is about. They only have a characiture of evolution fed to them by dishonest preachers.

i think you're right.
from the things i.d. believers have said here, they really don't understand evolution at all.
that's a problem. no real communication is going on.

579 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:51pm

re: #573 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, they've figured out cellphonics at least.

The did favor e-bonics for a spell, however.

580 VegasRick  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:53pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

How are you my friend?

581 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:43:57pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

{ MigueldowninMexico}!

I AM SO GLAD TO SEE YOU!

(You know what I mean)

MWAH!

582 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:05pm

re: #502 perdiem

Only if the religion believes in predestination and not free will. In the case of Islam, you make a point. There is tooth decay because Allah willed it. So why brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste?

583 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:09pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

OT ... how are you today?!?

584 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:27pm

re: #574 Mathew1977

And about this?

Did you or did you not say, "I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common."?

So- are you not in essence telling Charles what you think he should be focusing on?

585 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:36pm

re: #545 buzzsawmonkey

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, primordial soup.

And a primordial corned beef sandwich.

Suit yourself, more primordial booze for me.

586 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:40pm
587 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:47pm

re: #571 maddogg

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread,(and it does happen) and am highly unlikely to change any minds with my brilliant argument, that skipping to the next thread is often helpful.

Thank you, maddogg.

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

588 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:44:53pm

Hmmm, still at it? I have gotten off of the train , come home , had dinner , saw a little of the All Star Game, & it continues?
To my mind science is science & faith is faith.
You can not teach ID side by side with science. It is Theology or philosophy. People of faith are to be respected, but evolution is a fact whether or not Darwin had it exactly right.

589 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:45:11pm

re: #539 Lizard by the Bay

You sure know how to win friends and influence people his uncle, Mathew with one t.

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken

590 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:45:35pm

re: #572 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Wait until she puts the "that was no lady" exchange together.

*cringing under the desk*

(shaking head with condescending patience) Because I AM a lady, I am ignoring your (sadly typical) brutish remarks...

591 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:45:42pm

re: #537 Dr. Shalit

Replyto Self and goddessoftheclassroom -

For what it is worth, I remember the S.R.A. Reading Course which I learned to "game" when I was a "Ten-Ager." Color Coded and all the other stuff. Made me look like a genius. Worked for me at the time.
Very sorry that generations of students were held back because of the "Look/Say" Stupid-upid-ditity.

-S-

592 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:45:43pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!


Hey, how ya doing?

593 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:45:56pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

Hi!

How are you feeling?

594 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:46:12pm

re: #577 EC Marm

You don't have to be reuben in your superior knowledge.

595 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:46:19pm

re: #586 buzzsawmonkey

Seriously, isn't "whole language" an education-theorist's endorsement of Professor Harold Hill's "think system" from The Music Man? "If you can think the Minuet in G, you can play the Minuet in G."

Yep, you've got it.

596 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:46:56pm

re: #587 Mathew1977

Thank you, maddogg.

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

You're aware there's a name for that kind of behavior? It rhymes with @$$hole, and it's fowned on here, and in most of polite society.

597 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:03pm

re: #587 Mathew1977

Thank you, maddogg.

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

You are aware that you've just given the textbook definition of troll, and applied it to yourself, right?

Of course, with your disdain for textbooks...

598 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:03pm

re: #565 Mich-again

Science doesn't accept the notion of a creator because there is no way to prove it in a lab or explain it in a scientific theory.

Wrong. Science doesn't address the notion of a creator, but it could if there was evidence for one. Did you ever read Sagan's book "Contact" (not the movie, which was completely different)?

That's a speculation on a creator that actually wanted to be known, in a manner that couldn't be interpreted in a million different ways.

599 sleepyone  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:11pm

re: #365 Salamantis

Sal: We DO have the equivalent of that level of empirical evidence to prove that humans and great apes evolved from common ancestors, though; and all humans and great apes carry it in every DNA strand in each one of our many, many cells. It's the thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences to be found in the identical positions in our DNA and in theirs. Absent common ancestors from which we all diverged, there is NO STATISICALLY RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR IT. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

I've avoided commenting on these types of threads due to my insufficient knowledge on the subject but that, Sal, was one of the best responses I've read on this topic.

600 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:18pm

re: #573 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, they've figured out cellphonics at least.

"Buzz"

With Theodore Roosevelt spelling - give or take.

-S-

601 Bobblehead  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:30pm

re: #531 jcm

Art Break!

Good part starts a minute in....

Seriously cool. Ah, the mind of man...

602 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:34pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

Hi Miguel; good to see you here again!

603 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:39pm

re: #582 Mich-again

Nooooo! Don't mention predestination!

604 The Verde  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:40pm

re: #548 Mathew1977

I'm not sure what the hostility is for in all of this. This is starting to look a little like a leftist bash on beliefs that are outside of their own. People can debate without becoming antagonistic...

605 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:47:43pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

Miguel, RW told me about your situation this morning, I've been offline for a week.

Prayers for peace, strength and a speedy recovery!

606 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:48:03pm

re: #587 Mathew1977

Thank you, maddogg.

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

This now makes you completely GAZE worthy.

607 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:48:23pm

re: #590 goddessoftheclassroom

(shaking head with condescending patience) Because I AM a lady, I am ignoring your (sadly typical) brutish remarks...

*WHEW*

608 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:48:42pm

re: #598 Naso Tang

Wrong. Science doesn't address the notion of a creator, but it could if there was evidence for one.

There is plenty of evidence of a "creator". Look around you!

609 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:49:22pm

re: #584 Sharmuta

And about this?

Let me try and reason with you.

No, I am not in essence telling Charles what I think he should be focusing on?

I thought a forum is where we kick around competing ideas in the arena of thought.

Aren't we all by posting our comments in a way telling Charles what we think he should be focusing on?

610 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:49:40pm

re: #595 goddessoftheclassroom

Yep, you've got it.

"goddess" -

AND - if all 'y'all can't read music, play notes, etc. - NOW WHAT?

-S-

611 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:49:42pm

re: #597 Lizard by the Bay

7 seconds after me. GMTA.

612 slokat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:49:54pm

Obliquely on topic: was searching some different ideas from this thread, found an interesting post: Genetic Head Scratcher

613 esch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:49:59pm

re: #608 Mich-again

There is plenty of evidence of a "creator". Look around you!

With all due respect, that proves nothing.

614 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:50:00pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

Miguel! your back! How are you doing?

615 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:50:37pm

Hey, only 600 some comments...the night is still young!

Best science cartoon ever.

Particularly appropriate for evo/creation threads.
I reserve the right to riposte repost at will...!

616 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:50:44pm

re: #557 buzzsawmonkey

I've been on a number of these threads. Disagreement is nothing new to me.

i was talking abt. contaminants in the primordial soup that could make you sick.
' coacervates', those little blobs from a billion yrs. ago that gave rise to life.

617 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:50:50pm

re: #610 Dr. Shalit

"goddess" -

AND - if all 'y'all can't read music, play notes, etc. - NOW WHAT?

-S-

Just sound and fury, signifying nothing...

618 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:51:03pm
619 Lizard by the Bay  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:51:21pm

re: #609 Mathew1977

Aren't we all by posting our comments in a way telling Charles what we think he should be focusing on?

Only those of us who think we can run LGF better than Charles. See discarded lies, gulf coast pundit, and gates of vienna for the present location of those particular ex-lizards.

620 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:51:48pm

re: #596 Palandine

You're aware there's a name for that kind of behavior? It rhymes with @$$hole, and it's fowned on here, and in most of polite society.


Oh, gawd. You again? Isn't that bath drawn yet? You're more of a martyr than I'll ever be.

621 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:51:54pm

A zombie thread, and I've about had it for the evening! ARRGH!

622 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:52:39pm

re: #608 Mich-again

There is plenty of evidence of a "creator". Look around you!

By that logic there is only evidence of as many gods as humans have known for millennia, and today still. End of discussion I suppose.

623 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:52:42pm
624 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:52:44pm

Addendum to # 302 and # 411

Something I wanted to add--one reason for the enormous success of American democracy is that the major Christian denominations bought into it. They accepted the idea of organizing a government (and much of society) around objective reality and self-evident truths, rather than around religious dogma. They signed on to the contract, accepted the ground rules. As a result, the United States became the most advanced and economically powerful nation in the world, while remaining strongly religious and deeply moral.

The creationists and IDers want to break the contract, and not just break it, but break it in a sneaky, underhanded, deceptive manner. And they really think this will make us a stronger and more moral nation.

625 nyc redneck  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:52:50pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

THEY WERE EXPELLED!

hey miguel,
how good to see you back.
hope you are doing well.
you have really been missed.
:D

626 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:08pm

re: #613 esch

With all due respect, that proves nothing.

Well there was either some sort of a creator or it happened through some sort of abiogenesis. There are lots of theories, and plenty of evidence. Proof remains elusive though.

627 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:11pm

re: #603 Dianna

Nooooo! Don't mention predestination!

What's the one true religion?
What did everybody think of the Passion of the Christ?
Windows or Mac?
AR-15 or AK-47?

Did I leave out anything else designed to cause a fight? ;)

628 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:50pm

re: #612 slokat

Obliquely on topic: was searching some different ideas from this thread, found an interesting post: Genetic Head Scratcher

Very interesting.

629 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:51pm

re: #627 Palandine

What's the one true religion?
What did everybody think of the Passion of the Christ?
Windows or Mac?
AR-15 or AK-47?

Did I leave out anything else designed to cause a fight? ;)

The "a-word."

630 rightymouse  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:51pm

re: #578 nyc redneck

i think you're right.
from the things i.d. believers have said here, they really don't understand evolution at all.
that's a problem. no real communication is going on.

Well...here's the thing. There's been some confusion, methinks, over the term 'creationist' with Christians and others who believe in God as our creator, who also happen to agree with evolution science. These folks also agree that God should be kept out of the science class in school. There are some (including myself) who have felt that our belief in God as the creator is discounted/mocked, rightly or wrongly, as far as the origins of the earth/universe which cannot be proven religiously or scientifically.

Maybe it's late and I just need to go to bed.

631 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:53:54pm

re: #622 Naso Tang

Leave it be!

You may disagree, but you don't have to condescend.

632 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:54:12pm

re: #259 re: #476 Mathew1977

. . . Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion. . . .

I thought evolution was about how life developed once it began, not about the origin of life. Interesting that you call it an "opposing theory", instead of an "alternative" theory. Why would belief in evolution and faith in God be in opposition?


re: #72 Mathew1977

Acknowledging that there is a God is not religious.

ID doesn't even tackle that issue anyway, it just recognizes that some things in nature cannot be explained by millions and millions of years of random mutation. . .

ID does indeed "tackle that issue". Please look at the Governing Goals, and the 5-year goals in this Discovery Insitute Wedge Document. I've linked it, but if you don't care to click the link, here are the pertinent portions:
Governing Goals:

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

the first of the 5-year goals:
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research from the perspective of design theory.

633 freetoken  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:54:18pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

Miguel! realwest gave us a good word about your recovery... happy to hear you are making progress.

634 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:55:00pm

re: #627 Palandine

.45 vs. 9mm.

635 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:55:11pm

re: #476 Mathew1977

What do you mean, what is my opinion of the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Teaching an opposing theory of our origins does not establish a religion.

I know, I know, ID isn't a theory, blah, blah, blah...

We're in a stand-off where each side posits the other is full of dogma.

Sal: It's not really a standoff when one side has all the evidence.

No amount of rhetorical spin or supposed scientific evidence will convince me that man evolved from a simple organism.

Sal: It's actual empirical evidence, checkable by any person with acess to the blood of great apes and humans and the proper lab equipment. The only rhetorical spin I see around here is in your use of the word 'supposed' to mischaracterize it.

Darwin had no access to the technology we have now that allows us to actually view what is going on in a single cell.

Sal: Like, for instance, the thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in identical locations in human and great ape DNA?

Applying the idea that individual species change over time to man evolving from some sort of primordial soup is a stretch at best.

Sal: Yeah, it would require you to stretch you mind beyond its dogmatic, evidence-denying/dismissing confines. But that might cause you to experience cognitive dissonance, and harsh your benighted mellow, so you clamp down your memetic filters. Just remember; stretching hurts muscles and tendons, but it's good for them; no pain, no gain. The same is true of one's mind. Sometimes it has to grow to accommodate more truth. You shouldn't believe stuff just because it pleases you to do so, in spite of irrefutable counterfactual evidence; that is a both hedonistic and nihilistic stance.

I enjoy this forum and although my opinion varies from others on this topic, I am a Lizard first and foremost and really just want to eradicate radical Muslim terrorists like the Charles and the majority of you all.

I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common.

Sal: That's precisely the argument that folks defending the Vlaams Belang eurofascists presented a while back, and it's no more valid now than it was then. Charles focuses on idiotarianism, wherever he finds it. You're only complaining now because it's your sacred ox - the one that wants to indoctrinate public high school kids with sectarian religious dogmas in science class - that's getting quite deservedly gored at the moment.

636 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:55:18pm

re: #624 Tigger2005

Addendum to # 302 and # 411

Something I wanted to add--one reason for the enormous success of American democracy is that the major Christian denominations bought into it. They accepted the idea of organizing a government (and much of society) around objective reality and self-evident truths, rather than around religious dogma. They signed on to the contract, accepted the ground rules. As a result, the United States became the most advanced and economically powerful nation in the world, while remaining strongly religious and deeply moral.

The creationists and IDers want to break the contract, and not just break it, but break it in a sneaky, underhanded, deceptive manner. And they really think this will make us a stronger and more moral nation.

Applause. This is the real crux of the biscuit.

637 FamHistoryGuy  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:55:39pm

re: #81 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Tango anyone?

638 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:01pm

re: #629 goddessoftheclassroom

I decided that one and Terri should just remain quiet.

639 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:02pm

re: #627 Palandine

What's the one true religion?
What did everybody think of the Passion of the Christ?
Windows or Mac?
AR-15 or AK-47?

Did I leave out anything else designed to cause a fight? ;)

Mac, .40, M-14, BBQ and Turtles.

640 goddessoftheclassroom  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:40pm

And with that, I bid all you dear Lizards good night...

641 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:43pm

re: #598 Naso Tang

"N-T" -

The acceptance of a Creator - OR - non-acceptance is a mater of Personal Faith. My belief IS in a creator, as is my faith. might I be wrong? Yes. Might I be right? Yes. AND?

-S-

642 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:53pm

re: #624 Tigger2005

Well stated!

643 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:56:57pm

re: #626 Mich-again

Well there was either some sort of a creator or it happened through some sort of abiogenesis. There are lots of theories, and plenty of evidence. Proof remains elusive though.

Slippery you are.

644 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:57:20pm

re: #635 Salamantis

Applause for Salamantis too, not just for the excellent posts, but for finally learning how to do blockquotes.

645 melinwy  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:57:53pm

re: #407 Yankee Division Son

Wow, Joe Lieberman blasts Obama on Iraq speech..


wow hammer meet nail
thanks for that info

646 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:58:03pm

re: #632 reine.de.tout

Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life;

This argument has gone on for a very long time.

647 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:58:32pm
648 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:58:32pm

re: #644 Charles

Not to mention typing everything he's said with two fingers!

649 esch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:58:57pm

re: #626 Mich-again

That's about my perspective.

So far as the ID/DI controversy goes, I'm about 0.1%/99.9%. Even though evolutionary mechanisms are solidly proven, our current understanding does not account for the actual phenomenon of life (animated matter) or consciousness. So there is still a ways to go.

650 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:59:02pm

re: #617 goddessoftheclassroom

Just sound and fury, signifying nothing...

goddess -

"YUP!" And I shall take it No Further as I am sometimes "Politically Correct."

-S-

651 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:59:20pm

OT
I saw on O'reilly tonight that Obama has supposedly removed all references to being against the Surge from his web site.

652 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 6:59:55pm

re: #624 Tigger2005

That was beautifully done.

653 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:03pm

re: #490 Mathew1977

re: #487 Thanos

And who created the Wedge?

Matt: Charles.

You must not have clicked on the lonk; the Wedge Document was authored by Philip Johnson of the Disco Institute.

654 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:07pm

re: #635 Salamantis

Sal: That's precisely the argument that folks defending the Vlaams Belang eurofascists presented a while back, and it's no more valid now than it was then.

Creationist = White Supremacist.

Nice.

655 razorbacker  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:14pm

re: #570 MigueldowninMexico

Welcome back. Hope you have a quick and full recovery.

656 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:30pm

re: #639 jcm

Mac, .40, M-14, BBQ and Turtles.

Heh. We could probably combine all the great controversial ideas into one great thread if we tried. Reminds me of a joke e-mail. A teacher assigned his students to write a short story involving theology, romance, and mystery. The winner was the following short story:

"Oh God, I'm pregnant. I wonder who's the father?"

Ooh, for controversial threads, I also forgot:
*Are Hebrew National hot dogs kosher? (that was one of the first over 1000 comment threads, wasn't it?)

657 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:33pm

re: #651 maddogg

OT
I saw on O'reilly tonight that Obama has supposedly removed all references to being against the Surge from his web site.

maddog -

PRAY TELL - Why does That Not Surprise Me?

-S-

658 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:46pm

re: #643 Naso Tang

Slippery you are.

To clarify, I am 100% opposed to ID or any other religious theories sneaking or bullying their way into science classes.

659 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:00:46pm

re: #651 maddogg

OT
I saw on O'reilly tonight that Obama has supposedly removed all references to being against the Surge from his web site.

Their has been a Surge Purge!

660 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:01:05pm

re: #653 Salamantis

You must not have clicked on the lonk; the Wedge Document was authored by Philip Johnson of the Disco Institute.

See #533

661 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:01:55pm
662 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:02:35pm
663 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:02:46pm

re: #659 jcm

Well done!

664 esch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:02:47pm

re: #659 jcm

Their has been a Surge Purge!

They were just following their Urge to Merge.

Erm that doesn't sound right...

665 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:02:49pm

re: #542 Dianna

As well you should.

Religious belief is a serious matter. It's also deeply personal, and it is offensive to treat it as something deserving of ridicule.

I don't agree that this is always the case. We often have no trouble ridiculing the religious beliefs of Muslims on this thread. I think Christians who let snakes bite them are nuts. I think many of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Mormons, etc. are just plain silly. I would hope you would make fun of someone who thinks he has to appease his bloodthirsty god by cutting someone else's heart out (as well as warn your neighbors and buy a gun to protect yourself and your family).

I hold the right of others to have their own personal beliefs as sacred and serious. I can respect some beliefs (especially if the person who holds them is a good, honest, law-abiding, productive citizen, and this behavior appears related to his belief system). I'm neutral on others. But I hardly think all religious beliefs are beyond criticism or ridicule.

666 maddogg  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:02:51pm

re: #659 jcm

Their has been a Surge Purge!

Heh! that might be threadworthy! :)

667 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:03:09pm

re: #497 Mathew1977

Prepare for the fury, Palandine.

You are clearly stupid, based on the above posts.

You are also dangerous and responsible for America falling behind in science.

You may also be on par with a Mulslim Fundamentalist.

sal: Why don't you ask him if he believes that humans and other animals were created separately and as is before you make such unfounded assumptions? I do not see any reason whatsoever to associate him with you.

668 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:03:21pm

The crux of the biscuit
Is the Apostrophe(')
Zappa

669 opnion  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:04:03pm

Good night Lizards. ID Vs Evolution is always interesting to me.
Stay classy lizards, Please

670 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:04:44pm

re: #659 jcm

Their has been a Surge Purge!

This enema has been FLEET!

671 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:05:27pm

re: #631 Dianna

Leave it be!

You may disagree, but you don't have to condescend.

You speak for others and decide what should be said?

What started this brief exchange, which you presumably haven't bothered to check, was the statement

"Science doesn't accept the notion of a creator because there is no way to prove it in a lab or explain it in a scientific theory."

I disagree. Science could accept such a notion, and I disagree that Mich is so all knowing that he KNOWS what can be not known.

672 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:05:37pm

re: #654 Mathew1977

Creationist = White Supremacist.

Nice.

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Mat: I see this topic as a wedge issue; I'd much rather focus on what we have in common.

Sal: That's precisely the argument that folks defending the Vlaams Belang eurofascists presented a while back, and it's no more valid now than it was then. Charles focuses on idiotarianism, wherever he finds it. You're only complaining now because it's your sacred ox - the one that wants to indoctrinate public high school kids with sectarian religious dogmas in science class - that's getting quite deservedly gored at the moment.

673 Palandine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:05:57pm

re: #667 Salamantis

Hi Sal,

I'm a she-lizard. And I already busted him. Since he's self-revealed himself as a troll, I see no reason to go any further... ;)

674 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:06:05pm

jcm / goddess
I'm signing off.
Great evening, both of you!

675 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:06:38pm

re: #672 Slumbering Behemoth

Well- he IS trolling at this point.

676 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:06:46pm

re: #670 pre-Boomer Marine brat

This enema has been FLEET!

We have met the enema, and he is us!
/mybarackobama.com

677 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:06:50pm

re: #667 Salamantis

sal: Why don't you ask him if he believes that humans and other animals were created separately and as is before you make such unfounded assumptions? I do not see any reason whatsoever to associate him with you.

I won't ask him because he's in the tub right now and pulling the laptop in could have disastrous results.

But in truth, he and I have the same opinion, I just have a more caustic way of conveying mine.

678 jcm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:07:02pm

re: #674 pre-Boomer Marine brat

jcm / goddess
I'm signing off.
Great evening, both of you!

Night!
Sleep well!

679 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:07:29pm

re: #665 Tigger2005

I believe many beliefs are absurd. It's still not my place to mock.

I don't even mock muslim belief, much, unlike a lot of people here, precisely because I've met muslims who do reject violence, and sharia, and stupidity. It's unacceptable to me - no matter what I think, given the number of people of various sects on this board - to start whacking away at some of the religious beliefs I find odd.

I will, however, oppose any effort by anyone to impose their belief system on others, or to teach any religion outside of a religious studies class.

680 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:08:21pm

re: #658 Mich-again

To clarify, I am 100% opposed to ID or any other religious theories sneaking or bullying their way into science classes.

Thank you. I have learned that previously, but I was referring to the specific composition of our last few sentence. I dare say you were having fun, even though Dianna doesn't get it.

681 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:08:43pm

re: #671 Naso Tang

I saw it. I also have seen you before; I chose to speak up.

682 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:10:08pm

re: #680 Naso Tang

Thank you. I have learned that previously, but I was referring to the specific composition of our last few sentence. I dare say you were having fun, even though Dianna doesn't get it.

No, I just have watched you in action before.

683 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:11:31pm

re: #681 Dianna

I saw it. I also have seen you before; I chose to speak up.

I do not call your words "speaking up". They sound more like venting. There was a real issue in question, all you were saying was shut up.

684 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:12:43pm

re: #682 Dianna

There you go again. Don't you know it's rude to jump in when you have nothing to contribute?

685 Dianna  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:13:16pm

re: #683 Naso Tang

To you?

Oh, yes!

As I said, I've watched you in action before. I don't much like what I've seen.

So I'm off.

686 Mathew1977  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:14:07pm

Good night all.

I do hope to meet in another, kinder thread where we share similar opinions. A place where the chocolate rivers run and children cavort and play with gumdrop smiles.

I feel like the Joe Leiberman of LGF.

I'm with you 99% of the time, as he is with the Dems but this 1% seems to bring out the best in all of us.

I am no troll; I just hold a varying position and demonstrably do a good job of producing derision with my comments.

It is all in good fun and I hope to continue to contribute in the future, albeit in a more constructive manner.

687 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:14:36pm

re: #679 Dianna

I will, however, oppose any effort by anyone to impose their belief system on others, or to teach any religion outside of a religious studies class.

Same here.

688 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:20:02pm

Maybe the greatest philosopher of all time was Aristotle. But his notion of spontaneous generation was pure crap.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.

That theory hung around for a couple thousand years.

689 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:21:28pm

re: #686 Mathew1977

I feel like the Joe Leiberman of LGF.

I really don't get that analogy. Not one bit.

690 The Verde  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:22:35pm

Please delete my account :)

691 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:24:17pm

re: #569 Mathew1977

re: #561 Naso Tang

Which proves to the universe that you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Mat: One could argue that since the universe is not reading LGF right now, it proves no such thing.

Mat: Do you understand the meaning of the word?

Sal: Read and learn:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

692 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:24:26pm

re: #686 Mathew1977

I am no troll; I just hold a varying position and demonstrably do a good job of producing derision with my comments.

It is all in good fun and I hope to continue to contribute in the future, albeit in a more constructive manner.

I hope you'll understand when others will no longer take you at your word in light of this comment:

re: #587 Mathew1977

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

693 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:25:10pm

What would Wm. F. Buckley say?
[Link: collectedmiscellany.com...]

694 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:25:15pm

I guess I'll go back to the book I've been reading for months, "When Character Was King," about the life of Ronald Reagan. For some perverse reason I've decided I don't want to finish the book, so I only read one page per night.

695 EC Marm  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:26:58pm

The Verde

Registered since: Aug 20, 2007 at 6:48 pm
This user is blocked.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/Made you look...

696 MarineGrunt  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:28:24pm

re: #302 Tigger2005

Excellent.

697 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:28:29pm

re: #587 Mathew1977

Thank you, maddogg.

I have often found that when I am in disagreement with the majority on any particular thread, that further infuriating those with opposing opinions is highly entertaining.

Sal: Does entertainment this extend to refusing to acknowledge other peoples' logic and evidence, or refusing to admit when you lose?

You are right about one thing; people do tend to find the willfully dense and obtuse to be highly infuriating.

698 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:29:50pm
699 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:30:25pm

re: #688 Mich-again

Maybe the greatest philosopher of all time was Aristotle. But his notion of spontaneous generation was pure crap.

That theory hung around for a couple thousand years.

And your point is...?

Please see Salmutis' #691 for discussion of scientific theory.
Things have changed a wee bit since Aristotle's time, and for the very good reason that the ancient Greeks did mostly thought experiments, not empirical experiments. Thus some of their "theories" were not scientific in the modern sense of the term. They are only "theories" in the creationist sense of the term.

700 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:30:47pm

Fine, I respect your position, and I pretty much live by it myself 99% of the time. I may mock or ridicule someone's beliefs in my head but very rarely if ever do it out loud. If I did speak up I would be far more likely to disagree or criticize in a respectful way rather than engage in hurtful mockery or ridicule.

But there are many beliefs I simply cannot bring myself to "respect." I can't respect someone's beliefs if I don't think they deserve respect. What I CAN do is respect the individual as a human being (if, of course, he or she deserves it, and I'll always assume he or she deserves it unless demonstrated otherwise) and respect his or her right to his or her personal beliefs.

Finally, if I feel like criticizing a religion (not someone's personal religion, but an establishment of religion), I will. Religions have far to much influence on the world (as do political ideologies and economic systems) to be regarded as above criticism. Or ridicule. Or mockery. Even if I choose to limit myself to honest criticism and not engage in mockery or ridicule, in a way, I hope there will always be a few totally irreverent ones who have no such reservations--and that they'll always be free to mock and ridicule without fear of arrest.

(That said, I have little respect for cartoonists, comics, satirists, and artists in the West who play it safe by attacking Christianity while treating Islam with kid gloves.)

re: #679 Dianna

I believe many beliefs are absurd. It's still not my place to mock.

I don't even mock muslim belief, much, unlike a lot of people here, precisely because I've met muslims who do reject violence, and sharia, and stupidity. It's unacceptable to me - no matter what I think, given the number of people of various sects on this board - to start whacking away at some of the religious beliefs I find odd.

I will, however, oppose any effort by anyone to impose their belief system on others, or to teach any religion outside of a religious studies class.

701 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:32:42pm

re: #608 Mich-again

There is plenty of evidence of a "creator". Look around you!

Sal: At what? It has not been proven that anything you see when you look around you absotively posilutely required an intelligent designer. You have such proof of this long-discredited Argument from desigh, this Watchmaker fallacy? Please proffer it.

702 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:34:32pm

re: #609 Mathew1977

Let me try and reason with you.

No, I am not in essence telling Charles what I think he should be focusing on?

I thought a forum is where we kick around competing ideas in the arena of thought.

Aren't we all by posting our comments in a way telling Charles what we think he should be focusing on?

Sal: Between evolutionary theory and ID, there is no competition; one side has all the empirical evidential cards in the deck.

703 NY Nana  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:35:57pm

Re Israel, and the amazing technological, academic, scientific, medical and humanitarian etc. advances one tiny country, literally at war for eons with those who want to destroy the Jewish homeland? This video illustrates Israeli accomplishments very nicely.

704 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:36:03pm

re: #690 The Verde

Well, you can just take your 11 posts and go sulk somewhere.

705 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:37:05pm

re: #699 transient

I understand the definition of scientific theory versus say a theory on picking Lotto numbers.

706 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:39:07pm

re: #692 Slumbering Behemoth

But- the trolling was all in "good fun"!

707 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:41:03pm

re: #706 Sharmuta

But- the trolling was all in "good fun"!

/It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye because it is traveling to the other side of his head.

708 jaunte  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:41:47pm

re: #707 Josephine

Ha!

709 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:42:01pm

re: #671 Naso Tang

I disagree. Science could accept such a notion, and I disagree that Mich is so all knowing that he KNOWS what can be not known.

That is a wrong notion. There's nothing that says science "doesn't accept" the idea of a creator. Science is neutral on the idea of a creator. It is not capable of detecting or measuring a supernatural creator or its activity, so it limits itself to analyzing natural phenomena, with the assumption that they have natural causes. If there was a creator that could be detected by science, that creator would be natural, not supernatural, and would act on the natural world in ways that do not violate physical laws.

710 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:42:16pm

re: #707 Josephine

High five that, yo!

711 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:44:15pm

re: #705 Mich-again

I understand the definition of scientific theory versus say a theory on picking Lotto numbers.

I think that theories on picking lottery numbers can be quite complex and appear to genuine science in every way, except that they do not stand the test of peer review, meaning that there are definable flaws in the theory which invalidates it. That could apply to ID.

However the Creationist usage of the word theory is simply the common meaning of something like a guess or a hunch.

712 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:45:58pm

re: #710 Sharmuta

High five!

And a fist bump!

Then we snap our fingers, point at each other, do a hip check, twirl around and high five again!

/Upping the ante.

713 gman  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:49:13pm

re: #700 Tigger2005

Fine, I respect your position, and I pretty much live by it myself 99% of the time. I may mock or ridicule someone's beliefs in my head but very rarely if ever do it out loud. If I did speak up I would be far more likely to disagree or criticize in a respectful way rather than engage in hurtful mockery or ridicule.

But there are many beliefs I simply cannot bring myself to "respect." I can't respect someone's beliefs if I don't think they deserve respect. What I CAN do is respect the individual as a human being (if, of course, he or she deserves it, and I'll always assume he or she deserves it unless demonstrated otherwise) and respect his or her right to his or her personal beliefs.

Finally, if I feel like criticizing a religion (not someone's personal religion, but an establishment of religion), I will. Religions have far to much influence on the world (as do political ideologies and economic systems) to be regarded as above criticism. Or ridicule. Or mockery. Even if I choose to limit myself to honest criticism and not engage in mockery or ridicule, in a way, I hope there will always be a few totally irreverent ones who have no such reservations--and that they'll always be free to mock and ridicule without fear of arrest.

(That said, I have little respect for cartoonists, comics, satirists, and artists in the West who play it safe by attacking Christianity while treating Islam with kid gloves.)

I see your point because anyone can create their own religion and none should be above scrutiny.

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

I have no respect for religions that promote the harming of others physically or mentally. I do have respect for religions that emphasize love instead of hate and freedom of inquiry instead of conformity to dogma.

714 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:49:58pm

re: #701 Salamantis

It has not been proven that anything you see when you look around you absotively posilutely required an intelligent designer.

Of course it doesn't prove anything. It seems to me that the life all around us is either evidence of some form of a creator or it is evidence of abiogenesis. But there is no doubt in my mind that life has evolved into many forms and continues to do so.

re: #711 Naso Tang

However the Creationist usage of the word theory is simply the common meaning of something like a guess or a hunch.

True.

715 Josephine  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:51:19pm

It's bedtime here in Hogtown.

Good night, folks.

716 Naso Tang  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:51:22pm

re: #709 Tigger2005

That is a wrong notion. There's nothing that says science "doesn't accept" the idea of a creator. Science is neutral on the idea of a creator. It is not capable of detecting or measuring a supernatural creator or its activity, so it limits itself to analyzing natural phenomena, with the assumption that they have natural causes. If there was a creator that could be detected by science, that creator would be natural, not supernatural, and would act on the natural world in ways that do not violate physical laws.

Are you disagreeing with me or Mich? Me, I agree with you.

Arthur C. Clarke said it much better:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. (Ditto for Lizards)
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (or the supernatural)

717 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:51:32pm

re: #654 Mathew1977

re: #635 Salamantis

Sal: That's precisely the argument that folks defending the Vlaams Belang eurofascists presented a while back, and it's no more valid now than it was then.

Creationist = White Supremacist.

Nice.

Sal2: I don't have to think that eurofascists and Disco Institute shills are the same to notice that their defenders have employed the same arguments on behalf of both of them on LGF. However, I do see them as both being basically devious and dishonest, and willing to illegitimately piggyback on more honorable and respectable groups and movements (antijihadism, and conservatis.christianity, respectively) as well as anything they can dream up, in order to attain their goals, which happen to proceed by brainwashing their respective nations' youth into their doctrines so that they can get voted into power down the road, and I view their rule and the rule of people who agree with them (nazis and dominionists, respectively), to be to the decided detriment of constitutional democracy, which I suspect they would abolish once they seized the reigns of power (one citizen, one vote, no longer).

718 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:51:46pm

re: #712 Josephine

As long as we don't get into butt slaps, it's all good. ;)

719 Slumbering Behemoth  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:52:47pm

re: #712 Josephine


re: #710 Sharmuta

High five!

And a fist bump!

Then we snap our fingers, point at each other, do a hip check, twirl around and high five again!

/Upping the ante.

Don't up it any further, you two, or this could turn into one of those threads where I end up, how does Buzz put it? Dating myself?
//

720 J.S.  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:53:50pm

re: #700 Tigger2005

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that "Freedom of religion" does not trump everything else...So, you can't claim that it's your "right" under the Freedom of Religion clause to rip out the heart of individual X. I've read anthropology monographs (certain "cultures") which practice "religious" beliefs which would clearly constitute (if practiced in any western nation) criminal activities...among other things the practitioners would be charged with sexual molestation and child abuse. (Also, Britain's Muslims, as I recall, wanted to establish a law against the "mockery of religion" -- but, again, if iirc, that particular legislation was shot down. Personally, I believe every religion should be open to parody, satire and derision...we should not have to be forced, as in the Dark Ages, to adhere to "blasphemy laws," or have religious "thought police" monitoring one's commentaries.)

721 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:55:30pm

re: #677 Mathew1977

I won't ask him because he's in the tub right now and pulling the laptop in could have disastrous results.

But in truth, he and I have the same opinion, I just have a more caustic way of conveying mine.

Sal: I just found out that he's a she, and she disagrees - with you, not me.

722 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:55:48pm

re: #408 marjoriemoon

With this exception... No it doesn't. Even if one takes the bible literally believing Adam and Eve were the first people (or group of people), they were the first to have a divine soul. Other hominid life did not have such, a "God conciousness."

If one accepts evolution and interprets Genesis to mean that Adam and Eve are metaphorical representations of (the divine spark entering) early humans, then one is closer to theistic evolution. If one insists on the literal creation of two specific individuals as the foundation of all mankind, one is closer to creationism.

(It's a continuum....)

Thanks for bringing this up, because it gives me the opportunity to blather/ philosophize a bit. As a Jew (and a secular one at that), I do not believe in the idea of Original Sin. However, I find it to be a wonderful metaphor for humanity as we try to overcome the primitive instincts we have inherited from our evolutionary past.

Creationists fear that modern science/evolution gives people an "out" for bad behavior: "we have these animal instincts and cannot control them." IMO the people using these arguments are mostly lawyers trying to keep their clients out of jail. Everyone recognizes humans are different from other animals in a fundamental way: self awareness, extraordinary ability to abstract, and ethics/morality. Even if one does not believe in a soul or divine spark, humans know, or are capable of knowing, right from wrong, according to the ethics we learned as children. We are capable of--but struggle with--self control. It is this struggle that, in part, makes us human. What we struggle against, religion calls Evil; psychology calls Id, and an evolutionary philosopher might call primitive instinct.

Just a thought...open for comments.

723 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:56:11pm

re: #720 J.S.

Personally, I believe every religion should be open to parody, satire and derision...we should not have to be forced, as in the Dark Ages, to adhere to "blasphemy laws," or have religious "thought police" monitoring one's commentaries.)

I agree completely.

724 esch  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:58:03pm

re: #723 Mich-again

I agree completely.

Third that.

As a member of an oft-ridiculed group. Everyone is fair game.

725 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 7:59:48pm

re: #686 Mathew1977

Good night all.

I do hope to meet in another, kinder thread where we share similar opinions. A place where the chocolate rivers run and children cavort and play with gumdrop smiles.

I feel like the Joe Leiberman of LGF.

I'm with you 99% of the time, as he is with the Dems but this 1% seems to bring out the best in all of us.

I am no troll; I just hold a varying position and demonstrably do a good job of producing derision with my comments.

It is all in good fun and I hope to continue to contribute in the future, albeit in a more constructive manner.

Sal: You're more like the reverse Joe Lieberman. In Joe Lieberman's case, he's right and they are wrong where they disagree; in your case, vis-a-vis LGF, it's just the opposite.

726 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:02:38pm

re: #705 Mich-again

I understand the definition of scientific theory versus say a theory on picking Lotto numbers.

Then you understand that Aristotle's "theory" wouldn't get published in any peer reviewed scientific journal today.

Your implied comparison of Aristotelian "theory" with modern scientific theory, in order to denigrate modern science, won't wash. If I misunderstood your meaning or intent, please enlighten me.

727 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:07:03pm

re: #709 Tigger2005

That is a wrong notion. There's nothing that says science "doesn't accept" the idea of a creator. Science is neutral on the idea of a creator. It is not capable of detecting or measuring a supernatural creator or its activity, so it limits itself to analyzing natural phenomena, with the assumption that they have natural causes. If there was a creator that could be detected by science, that creator would be natural, not supernatural, and would act on the natural world in ways that do not violate physical laws.

Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they be sensorily perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement which are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere God is not.

728 Tigger2005  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:12:34pm

I was disagreeing with Mich. It's true, science is neutral on the existence of a supernatural creator. Now, some individual scientists are certainly NOT neutral about it, while others feel the probability of it is low. But SCIENCE, itself, is formally neutral on the subject.

If someone is saying that "science can't accept the idea of God" or that science says it's impossible that there's a creator or that this creator intervened in some way to start the universe and/or start up life, guide evolution, etc., they're wrong. It's possible, but searching for signs of divine intervention in the universe has proven 100% unproductive, while searching for natural causes has proven highly productive. So the vast majority of scientists assume natural phenomena have natural causes and don't waste time pursuing unproductive paths of research. The creationists and IDers are certainly welcome to use the donations they receive to do this research, but they seem to have lost interest in it since it wasn't going anywhere, so instead they've switched to publishing books, making movies, building creation museums and ark replicas, and trying to force a religious based pseudoscience into classrooms.

And as I've pointed out in my earlier posts, this is the real problem. It's not people believing in a Creator. It's about an underhanded attempt to subvert the Constitution and undermine basic principles of American and Western civilization.


re: #716 Naso Tang

Are you disagreeing with me or Mich? Me, I agree with you.

Arthur C. Clarke said it much better:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. (Ditto for Lizards)
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (or the supernatural)

729 Thanos  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:26:30pm

They are still stewing over Kitzmiller at DI, this comment left today on Dembski's blog:

I think that people may be starting to tire of ID and that critics of evolution have put too many eggs in the ID basket. I think that we need to diversify more into non-ID criticisms of evolution (e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts). I emphasize non-ID criticisms of evolution on my blog.

The Kitzmiller opinion’s ridicule of ID (e.g., “breathtaking inanity”) has done tremendous damage to ID’s reputation — as a result, government officials trying to introduce criticisms of evolution into public school curricula have found it necessary to disclaim that they are trying to introduce ID.

An amicus brief from the Discovery Institute urged Judge Jones to declare the controversy to be non-justiciable — questions are non-justiciable when there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277-78 (2004). An amicus brief filed by 85 scientists said, “Courts are ill-suited to resolve debates over the validity of controversial scientific theories. In particular, the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories . . . .” Megalomaniacal activist Judge Jones didn’t listen — he was determined to make a big name for himself by ruling that ID is unscientific.

Judge Jones revealed extreme prejudice by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. He should be disqualified from hearing any more establishment clause cases.

730 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:31:07pm

re: #726 transient

If I misunderstood your meaning or intent, please enlighten me.

No I was just pointing out as crazy as that notion was, it still stood for some 2,000 years until science caught up with it. What constitutes "a readily observable truth" depends on how well you can observe things.

731 Charles  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:32:05pm

re: #729 Thanos

Yes, they are still worked up over that ruling, because it made them look like exactly the kind of dishonest religious fanatics they are.

732 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:37:30pm

re: #100 Charles

re: #40 jaunte

[Link: [Link: www.islamonline.net...]...]

Good find. That one is going to have to be a front page post.

I can hardly wait for us to get to sink our reptilian fangs into this one!

(salivating in the corner...;~)

733 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:53:41pm

re: #728 Tigger2005

It's true, science is neutral on the existence of a supernatural creator.

But science is interested and uses resources researching the chemical processes needed to prove life can form without a creator. So science is not completely neutral on the whole topic of "Is there a God". There are lots of very smart people trying to prove "We don't need a God to explain life" And thats fine with me. Thats what scientists are supposed to do. Forever expand the knowledge base.

734 gman  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:54:42pm

re: #729 Thanos

I think that people may be starting to tire of ID and that critics of evolution have put too many eggs in the ID basket. I think that we need to diversify more into non-ID criticisms of evolution (e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts). I emphasize non-ID criticisms of evolution on my blog.

That quote reminded me of the Ron Paul forums when everyone started jumping ship.

The conversation on the forums was something like this:
"What strategy can we use to keep this thing afloat?"
"Maybe we can emphasize......."

When the appropriate commentary should have been more like this:
"Gee, everyone is leaving. I wonder why?"
"Maybe it's because there's a fundamental problem with Ron Paul"

Then again, "true believers" aren't called "true believers" for nothing.

735 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:59:06pm

re: #730 Mich-again

No I was just pointing out as crazy as that notion was, it still stood for some 2,000 years until science caught up with it. What constitutes "a readily observable truth" depends on how well you can observe things.

One might as easily say that the flat earth theory, or geocentric theory, or [insert favorite religious story here] -- as unscientific as that notion was, it stood for some 2,000 years until science/reality caught up with it.

Aristotle's "theories" have no more scientific bearing than Genesis, or any other creation story. They were not based on the scientific method.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

(Thanks to Slumbering Behemoth)

That said, all science is provisional. It represents the best explanations we have given the evidence at the present time. It works pretty well. It's gotten us to the moon. It's gotten us on the internet. It's gotten us a pretty sophisticated method of public health/ epidemiology and modern medicine. As opposed to ID, which is based on no reproducible evidence whatever, and hasn't given us diddly/squat.

736 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 8:59:35pm

re: #734 gman

"Gee, everyone is leaving. I wonder why?"

True believers don't worry about polls.

737 FamHistoryGuy  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:02:18pm

re: #639 jcm

revolver vs semi-auto

738 gman  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:04:32pm

re: #733 Mich-again

But science is interested and uses resources researching the chemical processes needed to prove life can form without a creator. So science is not completely neutral on the whole topic of "Is there a God". There are lots of very smart people trying to prove "We don't need a God to explain life" And thats fine with me. Thats what scientists are supposed to do. Forever expand the knowledge base.

I think most scientists "do" science for the love of discovery, not because they want to prove that life can form without a creator.

739 gman  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:07:04pm

New ID thread y'all- I'm on my way

740 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:08:11pm

re: #735 transient

Aristotle's "theories" have no more scientific bearing than Genesis, or any other creation story. They were not based on the scientific method.

I understand that..

Aristotle's writings on science are largely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. Beginning in the sixteenth century, scientists began applying mathematics to the physical sciences, and Aristotle's work in this area was deemed hopelessly inadequate. ... partly due to the absence of basic experimental devices, like clocks and thermometers.

Like I said in 730..

What constitutes "a readily observable truth" depends on how well you can observe things.
741 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:11:14pm

Okay a couple of cool articles, then I have to go to work.

Where Jumping Genes Fear to Tread.

"[M]any TFRs [transposon free regions] in the human genome occur in the same position in the mouse and opossum genomes, despite the fact that transposons entered each lineage independently, after each species diverged from a common ancestor. It appears that many TFRs are evolutionarily conserved features that existed prior to -- and have been largely maintained since -- the divergence of eutherian mammals and marsupials approximately 170 million years ago."

Given the strong evolutionary conservation of the TFRs, Mattick's group hypothesized that they are regions of significant biological importance.... Another striking feature of TFRs was that they are associated with ultra-conserved regions, or genomic segments longer than 200 base pairs with 100% identity between human, mouse, and rat. All of these observations strongly support an important role for TFRs in critical biological processes.

Transposons are bits of DNA shown to pop in and out of the genome (the scientist--Barbara McClintock--who proved this won a Nobel prize...it actually means something in science, as opposed to the Peace Prize). Human (and other) genomes contain enormous amounts of transposon DNA, which is often free to mutate because they do not represent functional genes. Mutated transposed DNA can be used to compare species and identify branch points among different species and families (Yea, even different "kinds"), much the same way as you might take a document and photocopy it, then photocopy the two photocopies, etc, but still be able to track the copies back based on the patterns of dustmarks that have accumulated with each copy.

The presence of transposon free regions suggests that these areas are very important genetically, because any disruption of their function would result in the inability of the individual to reproduce (or survive to reproductive age), i.e., lack of ability to pass down their genes.

742 transient  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 9:16:52pm

Kangaroos are just too cute to resist.

Oh yeah...and scientists have identified a divergence point between placental and marsupial mammals, and monotremes.

This is probably the better article, but the other one had a kangaroo pic!

Nite all.

743 Mich-again  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 10:55:34pm

My old family Bible, the translated Latin Vulgate printed in 1914 by the John Murphy Company says in Genesis 2:7 that ".. the Lord God formed man from the slime of the Earth. That has always implied we came from existing organic matter to me. Newer translations and versions say "dust" which is quite a bit different.

744 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 11:19:00pm

re: #743 Mich-again

Fascinating!

745 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 11:28:10pm
746 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jul 15, 2008 11:30:49pm
747 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 4:00:44am
748 mich-again  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 5:25:34am

re: #746 ploome hineni

your translation may be commentary

Thats about the same thing I was thinking.

749 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 6:46:09am
750 marjoriemoon  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 7:38:37am

re: #535 DeathtotheSwiss

I'll have to re-research this for you. They have private schools that teach their brain-wash but to find a specific example of my claim I will need to look. If you can't wait [Link: www.clambake.org...] should provide a few newspaper examples.

My problem has always been with the way the cult treats its own members (not just the apostates). The crazy new-age aspect is less disturbing than the fact that L. Ron Hubbard started his own "Navy" and his "tech" has directly lead to the deaths of dozens of church members. The lawsuits, the unexplained deaths and the enormous amount of money that the religion has stolen from its own followers in the name of self-betterment all make it particularly unattractive to me.

Sorry it's taken me awhile to get back here.

Yes, I know they have their own schools (if you can really call them that, they're slave camps really). You're brainwashed into leaving your family and possessions behind and come work for them. Scientology also engages in child slave labor, physical and emotional abuse of both children and adults which leads in many cases as you say, to death.

It's one thing if an adult person make such a decision. The problem comes when they marry, have children under scientology and the children are removed from the parents permanently and forced into slave labor and abuse.

But from your original few posts upthread, it seemed to imply that scientology was being taught in PUBLIC school, and that can't possibly be true.

751 hellosnackbar  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 11:49:03am

Creationism,intelligent design,astrology,homeopathy,islam there's a plethora of nonsense out there that's irritating.
Unfortunately we are asked to "respect"the daft irrational beliefs of the
"faithful".
What we must not do, is in complacent aquiesence, allow the idiotarians
any wiggle room to foist their lunacy on the minds of the susceptible(particulary in the school classroom).
Well I'm off to feed my Norwegian blue parrot(lovely plumage)he hasn't eaten for ages.

752 DeathtotheSwiss  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 2:29:03pm

re: #750 marjoriemoon

They sneak their "tech" into various government programs. I must say I haven't been able to find an example of what I stated earlier though.

753 hellosnackbar  Wed, Jul 16, 2008 3:19:53pm

After visiting LGF I payed a visit to PZ Myer's site and was priviledged to read a very funny "true story".
It seems that the IDiots have made a film entitled "Expelled"which PZ Myers his wife and a well spoken english gent got tickets to attend.
ID was demanded by a uniformed lackey at the door who promptly told Myers that he was not welcome and EXPELLED.
His wife and the english gent were allowed in.
Myers(in a state of convulsive laughter)retired gracefully.
The identityof the english gent:why, that world championer of creationism
and intelligent design Prof Richard Dawkins.
It's probable that this has been posted before;but worth a rerun.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Free Shipping on Online Orders over $99
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Nobody to this day.