lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The Separation of Church and State
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-05-2006, 02:32 AM   #41
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
It does refer to a four-cornered Earth
Hmp. The phrase is fairly common, only modified, like "Going to the ends of the Earth" and that kind of thing. Some passages are metephorical, you have to know which is which.

Quote:
hat god stopped the sun.
Again, a metaphor. God stopped the Earth's rotation, making it look like the sun had stopped. Looking from Earth, it would certainly appear that way.

Quote:
Then there's Galileo being persecuted by the catholic church for his heliocentric theory which at the time was blasphemy.
I'm not proud of this fact, but we aren't the only religion to make mistakes. Atheists are equally capable of mass blunders. The fact is, we figured out the truth, so the past is truly behind us.

Quote:
Only in 1992 did the catholic church admit they were wrong.
Where do you get that number? I looked for it on Google and couldn't find a definite number. Not on Wiki, or any other site. It says that it became widely accepted but doesn't give a year.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 02:41 AM   #42
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Hmp. The phrase is fairly common, only modified, like "Going to the ends of the Earth" and that kind of thing. Some passages are metephorical, you have to know which is which.
It originated from that time period, though, when at the time it was considered a reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Again, a metaphor. God stopped the Earth's rotation, making it look like the sun had stopped. Looking from Earth, it would certainly appear that way.
But, it does say specifically that god stopped the sun. It would say that god stopped the earth if back then they knew what we do now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
I'm not proud of this fact, but we aren't the only religion to make mistakes. Atheists are equally capable of mass blunders.
Atheists aren't members of a religion (we've been arguing this with rccar ), but of course atheists have ****ed some **** up. Stalin was an atheist, something I'm not proud of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
The fact is, we figured out the truth, so the past is truly behind us.
My point originally was the credibility. Creationism was first thought up by the early Egyptians and was passed on to all religions. Early people weren't all that credible, what with them believing things like the earth being flat and the center of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Where do you get that number? I looked for it on Google and couldn't find a definite number. Not on Wiki, or any other site. It says that it became widely accepted but doesn't give a year.
It was on the wiki article for Galileo. I remember my history teacher saying the same year as well.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:26 AM   #43
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
No, you're not.
Yes, I surely am irrational! I work off of scientific axioms all the time because I like being insane.

Quote:
Of course, the fact that there are so many religions makes it a little difficult to prove that he doesn't exist.
I just showed you that proving a negative is rather difficult to do, and you're pulling a fallacy as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Only in 1992 did the catholic church admit they were wrong.
There was no such retraction made. We admitted no mistakes other than that Galilieo's treatment could have been handled better.

ID and/or creationism in science classrooms: No. Please, didn't we have an entire thread about that?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 10:31 AM   #44
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
It is my belief that both the idea of creationism and evolution should be brought up in science class, [...] assuming the curriculum is balanced, i.e "the theory of evolution states that yada yada, whereas the theory of creationism states that blah blah blah".
Which creation story, specifically, should be discussed in a science classroom and why? Moreover, what has the supernatural and the mythical to do with science? The only context I can think of to bring it up would be to show an example of complete non-scientific, even pseudoscientific, thinking. The myth of Atun speaking the world into existence really has little of scientific value. Nor does the Norse myth of two god-brothers creating the first humans from two logs on a beach. And as interesting as the myth of Pan Gu is, the Chinese god that died and left his body to create the world, it holds little of scientific value for biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Though, perhaps each of these would have scientific value in a Social Studies classroom where comparisons of cultural mythology can be discussed.

I'm afraid, however, that the desire to interject Christian creation myths in a biology classroom is obvious proselytizing and therefore unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
As for W forcing creationism in: I haven't read of him doing this; I'd like to read a bipartisan article concerning this. Again, I'm not going to be W's puppet on this issue.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 12:51 PM   #45
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
But, it does say specifically that god stopped the sun. It would say that god stopped the earth if back then they knew what we do now.
And it was specifically a metaphor. By def., a metaphor is a simile with 'like' removed, correct? This and other passages are always a topic of debate between theologians, but it is my belief that this passage was written in the viewpoint of an Earth-dweller. After all, it is said that God did not physically write Scripture; He inspired scribes to write them. And there are multiple manuscripts that were written at different times, in different places, by different people that agreed so much that they could be compiled into the book that is the Bible.

Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.

Quote:
The UA team radiocarbon dated the famous Book of Isaiah scroll at between 335 BCE and 122 BCE. Paleogra- phers had dated this scroll at between 150 - 125 BCE. The team also analyzed the commentary on the Psalms (UA radiocarbon dated at between 22 CE and 78 CE); the Messi- anic Apocalypse that paleographers date at 100 BCE to 80 BCE (UA radiocarbon dated at between 35 BCE and 59 CE); the Exodus scroll of the Bible written in ancient Hebrew script that paleographers date at between 100 BCE and 25 BCE (UA radiocarbon tests date it between 159 BCE and 16 CE); and an inscribed round leather patch with holes that was attached to the Exodus scroll. Paleographers date the patch between 50 BCE and 50 CE (UA radiocarbon dated the patch at from 98 BCE to 13 CE). Inscribed patches of this sort have been described in ancient Jewish writings, Tov said.
Source

The latest of these was dated at as new as 78 C.E.. Note that

1. 78 C.E. is a max age, and may or may not be the actual age,

2. Ptolemy wasn't born until 85 C.E., later than all the above manuscrpts.

3. Aristole was born in 384 B.C.E., however, he spent almost his entire life in Greece, leaving only to go to Lesbos Island (you have no idea how many porn links I got trying to research that) where he got married, but eventually went back to Athens. The idea of Israel meeting with Aristotle is highly doubtful. And word-of-mouth can hardly spread over lands that want the Israelites dead. Oh yes, Israel has always had quite the array of enemies. The chances that his teachings influenced these manuscripts is highly doubtful at best.

Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either. If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.

Quote:
Atheists aren't members of a religion (we've been arguing this with rccar ), but of course atheists have ****ed some **** up.
I know. Forgive me; I mistyped. I meant to point out that the religious aren't the only ones to make blunders, is all. My apologies for the confusion.

Quote:
My point originally was the credibility. Creationism was first thought up by the early Egyptians and was passed on to all religions. Early people weren't all that credible, what with them believing things like the earth being flat and the center of the universe.
The Ancient Egyptians did believe that the world was flat, and they had indeed spread that over their region. But to say that religion itself stems from them is beyond inaccurate. After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.

Quote:
Which creation story, specifically, should be discussed in a science classroom and why?
No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.

Quote:
Moreover, what has the supernatural and the mythical to do with science?
You just beautifully illustrated what I wouldn't want to see in a class. See, that statement seeks to damage the credibility of religion in general, and I'm asking for a completely unbiased lesson plan. That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth". Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth? It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth, the history of animal species, and our place in the world. Touching. But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.

OK, scientists have proven that the Earth is far older than 6000 years by our reckoning. Proven it to be billions of years old. My answer is: Who cares? Does it not say in 2 Peter 3:8 that "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"? So, when Genesis says that the Lord created the Earth in six days, he could be meaning 6000 years! If each day is to a thousand years, would that not age the Earth at approximately 4.5 billion years? That agrees with modern science, and I see no conflicts.

Quote:
The myth of Atun speaking the world into existence really has little of scientific value. Nor does the Norse myth of two god-brothers creating the first humans from two logs on a beach. And as interesting as the myth of Pan Gu is, the Chinese god that died and left his body to create the world, it holds little of scientific value for biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth of evolution.

Quote:
I'm afraid, however, that the desire to interject Christian creation myths in a biology classroom is obvious proselytizing and therefore unconstitutional.
Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought. I was once cornered in a one-on-one with a biology teacher about this very subject. Without her precious internet buddies to back her up (server was down) she soon gave up. She did this because I snickered when she "proved" evolution's reality.

Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:
  • Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
  • What caused the first organic life to develop?
  • What caused that first process to begin?
  • Why are there no intermediate species? (Yes, I know that toucans from one island look different from toucans on another island. That process is called adaptation, not evolution. And there is a difference; Adaptation does not cause a new species. If it did, why don't we see evidence of this?)
  • Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?

See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.

Well, that's as close to bi-partisan as you can get. As a president I say he should not be using the office this way. As a person, he's doing what he should. Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 01:36 PM   #46
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,531
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
The "stopping the sun in it's tracks" story is a particular favorite of mine.

Either way you slice it, the physics involved would mean the end of life on Earth if it ever really happened. The braking friction involved to do something like that would boil the oceans and cause every carbon-based object on the surface to burst into flame.

For an example of what I'm talking about: Get out and grab the brake disks of you car sometime after a quick stop from a decent speed sometime.
Now imagine doing that instantaneously with an object the mass of the Earth.

Let's not even mention everything on the planet's surface still moving at rotational speed when it pulls to a halt. Like an unrestrained package in the back-seat of your car when you hit a wall at speed, everything is going to momentarily break with gravity, and go flying.

Then, after going through all of that; apply enough external force accelerate it back to speed from a dead stop, without turning what's left of the surface totally molten.

I guess that's what defines a "miracle."

You would also think that other writers (say, the Chinese...) of the time might notice that the day was overlong, and point it out somewhere.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 01:41 PM   #47
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
I think you already know what my answer would normally be. However, instead of preaching about the "pow'r of God" I'll simply repeat myself:

Quote:
If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 02:24 PM   #48
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.


Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth of evolution.
This crap about "teach both and let the students decide" is the sort of rubbish that creationists need to rely on... looks good on the surface, but take a microsecond to actually think about it and you realise its total rubbish.

The ideas are in no way on an equal basis... one has actual facts to back it up, the other is one of a hundred different fictional stories with no proof whatsoever behind it.

Lets teach students the myth of gravity, but also the story that gravity is caused by the weight of sunbeams forcing items down to earth... and then let students make up their own mind.

Lets teach students that black people have equal rights to white people, and also that black people are genetically inferior and therefore have a genetic predisposition towards raping white women... and then let the students make up their own mind.

Lets teach students that hitler was nice as well, and that the US started WW2.. after all, students are smart enough to come ot their own conclusions. Assuming they have any fact to base them on... which under your system they wouldn't.

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is constantly being revised and improved. That doesn't mean you should teach fantasies about the world being created by a giant spaghetti monster simply to "present both sides".



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:01 PM   #49
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.
All early people believed that the earth is flat. Egyptians!

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either. If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.
No one is trying to say that the bible is 100% wrong. There are some great stories in there. I enjoy biblical stories... from a historical view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
I know. Forgive me; I mistyped. I meant to point out that the religious aren't the only ones to make blunders, is all. My apologies for the confusion.
No problem, I knew what you meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
The Ancient Egyptians did believe that the world was flat, and they had indeed spread that over their region. But to say that religion itself stems from them is beyond inaccurate. After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.
In Sigmund Freud's book Moses and Monotheism, he suggested that Moses was an Egyptian related to the pharaoh Akhenaton, the earliest monotheist. Which is where he got his ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth?
I'd point you to a dictionary...

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth, the history of animal species, and our place in the world.
Except that a myth tries to explain it by saying that some all-powerful, all-knowing, and did I mention all-powerful, being(s) created everything. And that's how it happened. Where's the evidence for this? Just trust them? Okay, that sounds good. Again, that's what the ancient Egyptians proposed.

What does a theory do? It tries to explain it by doing things like studying, forming a hypothesis, and finding solid evidence to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.
Nothing can be "proven." No scientific theory is considered 100% truth. That's the great thing about science; it's flexible, and therefore capable of being improved and revised over time to be as accurate as possible. The problem is when you get religion that says that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth theory of evolution.
Creation stories are taught in history class, and scientific theories are taught in science class. What's wrong here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought. I was once cornered in a one-on-one with a biology teacher about this very subject. Without her precious internet buddies to back her up (server was down) she soon gave up. She did this because I snickered when she "proved" evolution's reality.
Biology teachers aren't trying to convert anyone. They themselves probably don't believe it. Relying on them to provide any real support for evolution more than what the textbook says is like trying to get a christian to support atheism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
It's happening right now. Can you say: "bird flu?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
  • What caused the first organic life to develop?
  • What caused that first process to begin?
For these questions, I point you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
That process is called adaptation, not evolution. And there is a difference; Adaptation does not cause a new species. If it did, why don't we see evidence of this?
Adaptation is just one step in the process of evolution. I don't think that you understand the theory (perhaps you weren't paying attention in class ). Evolution is something that happens over millions and billions of years. It's not like one day, wow a new species pops up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?
There is evidence that there was once very simple life on Mars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...structures.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.
Well, you can always get "answers" to something. Evidence, now that's a different story.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:22 PM   #50
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,531
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
And my point is that the tales in the Bible and the physical laws we all observe and have to deal with cannot co-exist peacefully. There are too many points where one has to say: "Well, I guess I'll just have to accept it on faith that's what happened,.. although that goes against all my experience of life on Earth."

But to "accept it on faith" is the exact opposite of the scientific method, where we strive to prove our theories by testing and re-producing results that match our ideas on how things really work based on careful observations.

Therefore, I propose that the Bible is only taught in arenas such as churches and homes, where people seeking spiritual edification can gather together and read the stories and discuss what they might mean, and devise philosophies to work around such inconsistencies as these; And that science, physics, and the ancient history we can research and prove be taught in our secular-leaning classrooms, where spiritual and mythological inconsistencies won't confuse the matters.

If what children are taught at home and at church, and then also at school about the creation of the universe and the origin of the human species are in apparent conflict, then that's something they are going to deal with on their own using their feelings and personal logic to work around the problems. It will be good for them to figure it out on their own.

I've never been really sure why there's such a move to include spiritual matters in the classroom, anyway. It seems to me that parents and preachers are far better equipped to teach such matters in the first place,.. rather than an overworked and underpaid public school science teacher... Who probably won't share your particular spiritual leanings, and very likely be reluctant to teach your spiritual matters in the first place.
Seems to me that someone like that could ultimately do more harm than good to the religious life of the kids placed under their care. I would think that most parents faced with that particular scenario would be horrified by the prospect.

But that's just me...


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)

Last edited by edlib; 03-05-2006 at 08:48 PM.
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 03:36 PM   #51
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
This question seems to mark a clear mis-understanding of the very theory you're trying to "mythify". There are no clear "steps" in evolution, like TK said, it's a continuous process that has spanned billions of years. It has never stopped occuring, and it doesn't move in steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
What caused the first organic life to develop?
We really don't know, because we weren't there to observe it, though there are some theories that have been thrown around. However, just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean it has to be a mystical answer. It's entirely possible that in some amount of time we'll be able to answer that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
What caused that first process to begin?
Who knows, maybe some strange atmospheric conditions that occured during the formation of the earth itself caused it. Like I said, science itself is a fairly young practice in the life of our species, and look at how much progress we've already made. We may someday answer that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Why are there no intermediate species?
I assume by "intermediate species" you mean, say, ancient man? Homo Erectus? Things like that? They aren't around anymore because they died out. They were replaced by their superior descendants, according to natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find?
That's just a ridiculous question. In our own solar system there is currently only one planet that is capable of supporting biological life. Mars MIGHT be capable, but certainly not in it's current state. We've never VISITED a planet outside our solar system, so basically it only happened on Earth because it could only have happened on Earth. With the billions and billions of planets all older than our own out in the universe my guess is that there is life on other planets, and evolution likely occurs on them too. However, we can't get any real empirical evidence on that because we simply don't have the technology to do so.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-05-2006, 05:16 PM   #52
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either.
It proves that the literature of christian mythology was written by people with knowledge of contemporary and historical people and events. Mark Twain and Melville demonstrated as much in their literary works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it.
Clearly there are individual things in the bible that have been sufficiently disproven. Global flood and stopping the sun/earth for a day for instance.
After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.

There is good evidence that suggest that the pharaohs had little choice in what to allow the Canaanites (the ancestors to the Jewish culture in Egypt during the time of the Exodus legend), whom the Egyptians referred to as the Hyksos. Lower Egypt has archaeological sites that are replete with Canaanite temples. The Canaanites had multiple gods and godesses, including the early versions of Yahweh and Asherah, his wife. There is no evidence of monotheism before the Egyptian monotheist Akhenaten. The earliest monotheistic artifacts date to periods after the Egyptian 18th Dynasty ca. 1350-1330 BCE. Monotheism is an Egyptian invention, borrowed by the much later Jewish descendents of the Canaanites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.
Right. This would be the same argument that diviners and alternative health proponents could use. Teach kids that there are alternatives such as magnetic insoles, which are believed to provide some medical preventitive benefits. Never mind what science has shown us to date about magnetics, kids -left to their "own devices" should be able to sort out the poppycock, right?

Fortunately, most educators understand that giving any credibility to pseudoscientific claims serves only to legitimize them. If creationist nonsense is to be discussed, it should only be properly ridiculed. Since this would be considered crass, it should be left out of school altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth".
Of course, it *is* "just another myth." How very ethnocentric of you to consider that your own superstitions are valid over those of other cultures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth?
It would make you look stupid. Creation myths lack evidence. Evolution is a fact that has a preponderance of evidence (though there are those ignorant of it both wittingly and unwittingly).

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth,
No, that would be geology and astrophysics. Evolution provides the explanation for how changes have taken place over time. Hows, not whys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.
Wrong. There is "heated debate" because the superstitious feel threatened by science. Scientists are in consensus over evolution. It is a fact. It really happened. It is proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt. That there are those ignorant or superstitious enough to reject the science that proves evolution is true, but it is proven nonetheless. The bible is capable only of providing a source of literature by which humans can pretend to draw explanations. I say pretend, because there is plenty in the bible that is simply rejected even by the most superstitious of christians. We don't stone to death adultresses or those that chose to work on Saturday as commanded in the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought.
First, I'm not in the habit of consulting the theasarus nor do I own one. Proselytize is a word that holds a meaning more specific to religious cults than convert. The very act of proselytization seeks not only to "convert" but to get the "word" out, whether the listener "converts" or not. I'm sorry if you're not familiar with the term, but I'll not reduce my vernacular to elementary level in a forum with adult expectations. It's good, however, that you keep your thesaurus and dictionary handy to keep up.

Second, biology teachers seek to educate students with the currently understood explanations of biology. They rarely seek to "convert" anyone to a particular way of thinking. Students are free to agree or disagree with the information, but they must learn the knowledge and information as accepted by science. What they do with it is their choice. "Conversion" is a strictly religious term in this context. In biology or other sciences, it refers to the practice of changing matter into energy through ATP or perhaps changing a measurement into another format, such as Celsius to Farenheit. I very seriously doubt the biology teacher would suggest sucrose and fructose are "proselytized" into Adenosine triphosphate.

Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:


Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
[*]Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
A strawman argument, obviously. Evolution is defined as change over long periods of time. The "next step" in the evolutionary process can only be speculated on when current conditions that a given organism faces. Future conditions, competitive releases, and evolutionary pressures can only be guessed at. Why would you expect to see a trace of something that hasn't happened? The answer is, you wouldn't. And, as a strawman device, the question fails miserably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
[*]What caused the first organic life to develop?
Are you asking a question about evolution or abiogenesis? This reveals either witting or unwitting ignorance. If unwitting, allow me to educate you. Evolution is concerned with the gradual changes in speciation over time. Abiogenesis is concerned with "first organic life." If witting, the question is a deliberate distraction attempt, typically used by creation nutters (not referring to you) to create the appearance of a problem for evolution, but this particular strawman argument fails because evolution is a different subject altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
[*]What caused that first process to begin?
See the answer to the strawman question above and apply it here as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
[*]Why are there no intermediate species?
There are abundant "intermediate species." I would suggest that you actually took a class that includes discussion of this. A course in physical anthropology would satisfy a core requirement in anthropology for most degrees as well as provide you with an education. Here are some intermediate species: Astralopithecus robustus; Notharctus; Zanycteris; Cantius; Proconsul and Aegyptopithecus. These are just primate forms and I mention them because its an area I've studied in some detail. There are, obviously, intermediate species of horse, canine, bovine, ovacaprids, camalids, angiosperms, conifers, wheat, corn, etc. Indeed, most of the species alive today will probably be intermediate to some successive species, assuming we (or some asteroid) don't destroy the planet first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
[*]Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?
Obviously another strawman, since our sample size is only just now being expanded from 1 to others.

Surely an educated person can come up with better questions than these to question the validity of evolution! Only a couple of these actually applied to evolution. What about the irreducibility of the flagellum or anti-clotting of blood? Or some other such nonsense? At least these are thought out even if wrong. Your questions look as if they were simply lifted from an anti-science website

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.
A lot of mythical religions answer these questions. Indeed, most, if not all do. Which further devalues the validity of any one religion. I still have yet to see a good reason why your cult is more valid than that of aboriginal Australians or the Navajo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.
There's not a lot of Navajo standing at busy intersections looking for handouts for the Blessing Way. Indeed, show me where Buddhists seek to proselytize others. They may, but I've always assumed that to become a Buddhist, you had to seek them.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 01:18 PM   #53
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
*Why do humans and other species have vestigial limbs that serve no function?

*Why is the human body so badly designed to walk upright? (back problems)

*Why, after god had created a pretty much perfect eye in squid did he then use such an inferior design for the human eye?

*Why did god forget to mention dinosaurs and so many other lifeforms/events in the bible? A few simple footnotes could have ended this debate once and for all before it got started. God is obviously a damn sloppy reporter.

*Why, when we can trace almost the entire timescale of most life over the last few million years, with every biological or genetic marker mapping onto a concurrent geographic shift do people still refuse to believe it?

*What are the odds that every scientific discovery made over the last few hundred years, even with each new technique or skill that becomes available to us, would all point towards one picture, but the truth would be something totally different, that has NO supportng evidence and even a fair amount of CONTRADICTING evidence?
I'd hate to be accused of murder with a creationist jury, as evidence, facts and proof seem to hold no weight at all.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 02:02 PM   #54
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Each of those questions have decent answers if you are willing to look. Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start. The mentioning of dinosaurs is common in the Bible, there have been leviathans and then the behemoth whos description in Job can only fit a sauropod. Also i'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I believe it could have happened with numerous supernatural interjections. My main gripe is with abiogenesis, I cannot possibly conceive of how something like that could have happened. Alas, I am out of this thread.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 02:31 PM   #55
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinny
Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start.
I don't think you'll find many people who would give credence to that site, I'm afraid. It has a...reputation, shall we say.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 06:09 PM   #56
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
This crap about "teach both and let the students decide" is the sort of rubbish that creationists need to rely on... looks good on the surface, but take a microsecond to actually think about it and you realise its total rubbish.

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is constantly being revised and improved. That doesn't mean you should teach fantasies about the world being created by a giant spaghetti monster simply to "present both sides".
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 07:13 PM   #57
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 07:29 PM   #58
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
If we're going to the trouble of pointing THAT out then it is also necessary to point out that EVERY SINGLE scientific discovery, theory, or law is subject to potential falsification at some future date. That's one of the basic tenets of science, and if we have to explain that every single time we introduce anything in science, class is going to get pretty repetetive and slow down the entire process.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 08:03 PM   #59
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.
Well, since there's so many people wanting to deny the Holocaust these days, how about in history class we have the teachers show "both sides" and let students make up their own mind if the Holocaust really happened. Sounds good right? Let people decide what they want to believe?

We can present the side that most all educated people share, and then we can present the side of the loonies like Mr. Iran.

But of course that would be rubbish. All it would do is confuse matters by bringing in the "other point of view" that is invalid in the classroom, like that the Holocaust is a myth... or that a flying spaghetti monster created everything.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 09:42 PM   #60
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.
It is when the "sides" aren't equal sides at all... otherwise every time we teach nything we will have to trot out every alternate theory held by anyone in the world and present it with equal weight to the students.

Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?

Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp. I must not be explaiing it very well.

Quote:
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
But the odds that the whole of evolution will be disproven at a stroke are reduced each and every time a coroberating discovery is found. Small parts of the theory are likely to be revised over time, but the whole thing has about as much chance of being disproved as gravity.

Creationism on the other hand can never be disproved, but it has been shown to be wrong in every test it has come up against.

Quote:
Answersingenesis.org
If we are trading joke sites then i'll see your Answersingenesis.org and raise you a http://www.venganza.org/



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 09:43 PM   #61
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,531
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven...
That's included and implicit within the definition of the word "theory," and to re-emphasize it would be merely redundant. I remember getting that explanation in one of my early classes, before I ever got to science or physics. Didn't think it needed to be brought up each time a new theory was introduced.
How many of the other theories that scientists use and work with every day get this same kind of scrutiny? The Theory of General Relativity hasn't been proven in full yet... yet I don't see too much effort in trying to discredit Einstein everyday. Most of Quantum physics is still largely theoretical, but that fact that you are reading this post is only possible with the technology that is possible using the ideas from that theory.

But we are talking about discussions in the context of a science class here: Shouldn't the science teachers teaching science to science students in a science classroom have the freedom to be able to teach them what is the universally accepted scientific theory of other professional scientists? Shouldn't that be the way it is? When you are in science class, you learn what scientists believe.

And when you are in theology class, you learn the (inspired?) writings of the ancients.

We don't try to interject political philosophy into our algebra lessons... Why the push for theology in science classes?


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 11:14 PM   #62
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?
The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-06-2006, 11:22 PM   #63
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.
Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities. Biology textbooks used to do just that, devoting an entire chapter to the subject (a friend of mine showed me his text from when he took college bio back in the '60s), but now people are filing lawsuits over a sticker that merely states that evolution is a theory that should be critically considered!

According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.

Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 12:12 AM   #64
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.
But why is it just limited to evolution? I mean, have tectonic plates and seafloor spreading really been proven yet? How about global warming? I remember learning about that in middle school. Or even dinosaurs? Sure we have their fossils but how do we know for sure what they really were like? And how do we know exactly how hot the center of the earth is? Can our readings be truely accurate in such extreme temperatures?

All these things rely on a certain degree of speculation and estimation. As does evolution. So why is it only evolution that receives a disclaimer? Why not just put a disclaimer for the entire content of the textbook to be fair?

The answer? Because they have to do something to keep the creationists in Kansas from burning the textbooks like they do to Harry Potter books. This isn't about the fact that evolution is 'just' a theory. If it were then the entire textbook would have to have a disclaimer on it, not just for evolution. Face it: people don't like something that they see as a threat to their religion. It's been happening for centuries. Religion has always attempted to silence science. The church was going to execute Galileo for the crime of saying that the earth is round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.
I couldn't agree more...
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 01:06 AM   #65
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?
You've GOT to be kidding us, right? You seriously think that the word "theory" refers to the colloquial sense? A "theory" in science is a set of tested hypotheses. Moreover, the idea that there is some hierarchy in science that follows from "theory" to "law" is a very under-educated position.

This argument from ignorance presented by creationists has been so beaten to death, I'll let another source respond:
Quote:
evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms (Gould 1981).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
Yet another argument from ignorance. Guys, if you're going to criticize science, at least educate yourselves in it first. Evolution is as proven as any other theory in science. As proven as atomic theory. As proven as gravitational theory. As proven as electrical theory. Theory does not mean a speculation in science. One cannot have a scientific theory without one or more tested hypotheses. Evolution has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tested hypotheses. And not one alternative or null hypothesis to the idea of evolution has resulted in any verification. Evolution is proven to the extent that anything in science is proven.

There are no holes in the fact of evolution that have been presented and stand the test of science. If there are, I challenge you to list them. I'm perpetually amazed at the anti-science crowd. They have no problem getting a vaccination or taking a plane ride or filling their cars with petrol, but the deride the very methods that offer these technologies as invalid and "unproven." Freakin' amazing. Fascinating to no end.

There are, however, holes in the mythical nonsense that creationists cling to. Many of them. I dare anyone to ask me to list them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.
Superstition and magical-thinking are killing it.

Reference:
Gould, Stephen J. (1981). Evolution as Fact and Theory.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 03:33 AM   #66
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.
If it's a good model, use it. There's no reason why you shouldn't. Theory does not mean mathematical proof, and it doesn't take a genius to find out that people just guess sometimes. I'm just glad there aren't any books from Abeka in my college classes... my mom tried to make me use them when I was in grade school (homeschooled), but they just rubbed me the wrong way. I was never interested in what someone thought about it in my science studies, just what they knew. If I want metaphysics I can get it more efficiently elsewhere.

Quote:
Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities.
That's what's being assumed. Nothing is being excluded by science save things that can't be proven by science. It doesn't even exclude them as possibilities either, it just ignores them. It makes a strange sort of sense, in fact...


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 11:11 AM   #67
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 03:24 PM   #68
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up.
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 04:09 PM   #69
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.
Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-07-2006, 06:53 PM   #70
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...
Skin likes to live on the side of danger. X)
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-08-2006, 09:57 AM   #71
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Darn those viruses, we'd be able to create a cure if they didn't keep evolving so quickly!!!
*kidding*

OT: What is pink eye anyway, it seems to be a US only thing...



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-08-2006, 12:32 PM   #72
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
I just love Wikipedia...
Pinkeye (aka conjunctivitis)

I don't know if it's a US only thing...but I do know that it's really annoying. I got it a few years ago.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-08-2006, 06:29 PM   #73
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.
ROFL

Quote:
From my profile...

Additional Information
Birthday: January 18, 1991
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Interests: Star Wars, Civilization
Occupation: High School Student
Sorry, that's out. (Actually, state law says I'm allowed to drink in my own home. But I didn't want to eat or drink anything over the last couple of days)

Anyway, I'm doped up on medication, so I doubt my posts will be coherent. Because of this, I'm not back; just wanted to check in. But at least I feel what doped-up should be!



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 07:31 AM   #74
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.
And certainly long before anyone was around to say it was round.

Quote:
No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.
Political Correctness isn't the reason for Creationism being re-Christened into Intelligent Design. It's merely an attempt to make it sound less religious so that it can be included into Science class. It seems to me sometimes that the Creationists are getting desperate.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 11:29 AM   #75
StaffSaberist
DECEPTION IS FINISHED! :D
 
StaffSaberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Posts: 1,092
Actually, I couldn't care less if it gets integrated or not, but I wanted to see how bigoted this body would get. I am not impressed.



Deception, the best SP level-set in the world, is done! Get it here!
"Query: What is it you wish, fat one?" - HK-47 at his best
I have begun modding TSL. Check it out here. and My Fanfic
StaffSaberist is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 11:56 AM   #76
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I must agree.

bigot A. n.

1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.

2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed) 1989.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 12:16 PM   #77
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
bigot:

1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Well, you've got you're religious bigots & your anti-religious bigots...but that's nothing new around here.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 12:26 PM   #78
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
bigot:

1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
That may apply to some, but not to me. I'm completely willing to revise my position on religion should anyone religion demonstrate evidentially that its claims are correct and valid. To date, all religions have failed miserably to do so. It, therefore, cannot be called "bigotry" to reject unhealthy thinking but, rather, "reason."


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-09-2006, 05:42 PM   #79
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
Abiogenesis has done the same for me.


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-11-2006, 01:27 AM   #80
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,324
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Thumbs up

Another notion of people comparing atheism to a religion could be the limited view of someone on the sidelines listening to activists. The blathering of some atheist anti-religious nut might sound similar to somebody as the blathering of the anti-atheist religious nut. If one is trying his darndest to convert you to his "right" way of thinking and you don't want to, then this isn't an uncommon reaction to have.

Being an atheist doesn't mean a person is necessarily intolerant, it's simply a stereotype, much like the intolerant christian stereotype that gets bandied about. I guess when I think of it, it's not so much that one HAS an opinion or even that one expresses it, it's more in how chooses to express it and how one interacts with others in relation to it. So at least on a very basic level, we're all bigotted or intolerant in some way, unless we're mindless drones who have no thoughts about anything!

Oh and TK, the issue of a flat earth (a round earth theory comes as early as Aristotle I think) and the heliocentric/geocentric controversy are completely seperate issues.

The RCC has accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe for centuries, the apology was to Galileo's harsh treatment, including his illegal condemnation (he was not guilty of "heresy").

A quick rundown of some ways in which the Bible appears to indicate a flat earth (interpreted literally, one would come to conclude the ancient writers assumed this to be fact, as many other ancient cultures did) and/or geocentrism: here. Of course the vast majority of those who use the Bible today admit that the ancients simply didn't know what we know now and interpret it as poetry and metaphor. Reading literally, one can also come up with the Big Bang from the Bible (references to God "spreading out the heavens as a tarp" repeatedly), a global ("the whole world" "all flesh") or a local flood ("the ends of the earth" = continents). The reason "contradictions" arise is because you have different writings by different people from different time periods all put together and then being called "this and this are the words of God." But in rabbinical thought at least, such a thing is not seen as contradiction, it's merely different ways and voices coming at the ultimate questions and mysteries of life within a certain framework. It's definately not a scientific view (at least not the conclusion, anyway). Much of the cosmology in the Bible we know not to be literal (for example "stars" are not always stars, they are sometimes angels, as it was a common ancient astrological view that the luminaries in the sky were either spirit beings or inhabited worlds.. or else holes in a giant canopy through which divine light shone, not giant balls of burning gas bigger than the earth, like our sun that were just really far away).

And to those who say we don't use symbolic language anymore, one of the greatest modern examples is the phrases relating to a person's "heart" (when we really mean their "mind" or emotions). And people can have "gut reactions" and other absurdities, just because that's how people often talk. Anyway, I'm rambling now... the point is that some people run into difficulty because they have a doctrine of "the bible alone" which would logically prevent them using other materials to interpret the bible such as comparative history and literature to see just how things could be interpreted. But few people I think really adhere to even this doctrine, even if they don't admit it.

Quote:
It's alright to be skeptical, but most wiki's are accurate.
As accurate as anything else on the internet written by non-experts!
It's only as accurate as its edited to be... and it will never be complete, which doesn't mean its completely useless of course.

Quote:
big·ot P Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[which is the same wording used by my copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed. 1997.

bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

in·tol·er·ant P Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

intolerant

adj 1: unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion [ant: tolerant] 2: narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: illiberal]
dictionary.com


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The Separation of Church and State

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.