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