The “Threat” of Creationism...
-
Doug Goulden wrote: No they aren't, they are fighting a group of people This is not exactly what Bush says when he speaks. Doug Goulden wrote: they are fighting a group of people Looks like they are fighting more than a group of people to me. http://www.homelandsecurity.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=TGroups&file=index[^] Realisticlly, our odds of destroying these organizations are very low. Each organization we destroy, another will pop up. We can only HOPE for containment. A question that is most important, in my mind is , How does the government know when to conclude this War against Terrorism???? This could be an on going thing that will ruin us. This country is being too offensive and paraniod, and Bush's motives are questionable. His reelection depended upon military action or no military action. Americans love to win, myself included, but...(dramatic pause:)) Doug Goulden wrote: Ready to have your mother or sisters or wife beaten for not wearing a burqha? They were never a realistic threat to destroy our government, our building and lives yes, but government? As Einstein kinda said "Get REAL!" Doug Goulden wrote: how long before the American consumer relizes that they can't pay for Cadillac tastes on Walmart paychecks? Until the consumer driven media tells them. We all know that will happen:( Later, JoeSox "You have the sight now Neo, you are looking at the world without time now ..." -- The Oracle, Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Looks like they are fighting more than a group of people to me. There is definitely mor than one group of terrorists, however, not every group that is on that list is "actively" pursuing an agenda against the US. If memory serves, the African National Congress is more involved in controlling South Africa these days than attacking the US.;P Other groups on the list such as Abu Nidal if memory serves correctly, were supported by ol' Momar Quadafi. As a matter of fact I seem to remember they were the ones who attacked the Achille Lauro in the 80's leading to the action by Reagan against Quadafi. We haven't heard to much from them since as far as I remember. JoeSox wrote: This is not exactly what Bush says when he speaks. JoeSox wrote: Realisticlly, our odds of destroying these organizations are very low. Each organization we destroy, another will pop up. We can only HOPE for containment. A question that is most important, in my mind is , How does the government know when to conclude this War against Terrorism???? I think that what some of the more reactionary people among us need to realize, is that most of what the words "War on Terrorism" consists of rhetoric. What the US government, as in We the People, can hope to do is to disrupt sources of funding and support for the people who would harm us. As far as someone being able to actually destroy our way of life? How would a smuggled nuclear weapon inside an Al Quada owned freighter in New York harbor go over? Can you name even one country that has had nuclear weapons that might be under less than tight controls? I can think of one ..... Thats a real threat as far as I can see, the US government has been spending a lot of money to help Russia to destroy old warheads. JoeSox wrote: They were never a realistic threat to destroy our government, our building and lives yes, but government? If you and I and a few million other people were dead, who would give a damn about the government. And could you define what the US being to offensive means? Getting rid of a dictator or two? Pressuring NK, Quadafi and Iran to submit to inspections? twisting the arms of a few governments that might be turning a blind eye to what is happening? I don't see the US dragging people into secret prisons and torturing them, Guantanemo is a bunch of people that were caught red handed in Afghanistan supporting either Al Quada or the Tali
-
Stan Shannon wrote: What is there for the creationists to win? What constitutes victory? The right to have the teaching of science dictated by non-scientists. That is their goal. Stan Shannon wrote: Creationism might reject the conclusions of science, but it necessarily embraces scientific methodology. It just uses it to support a different set of conclusions. By doing so, the creationist abandon their primary belief system, faith, and teach children that reason is the way to truth. No, the opposite is true. The claim of creationists to adopt scientific methods is a fraud. They take the creation story of Genesis as the literal truth which cannot be questioned and then create a lawyer's case for their pre-determined conclusion. They are not in any way open to a revision of their conclusions in light of the evidence. The father of modern creationism, Henry Morris, is quite explicit that ultimate authority is found in the text of the Bible. At the recent Christian Booksellers Association convention in Denver, a leading Christian publisher asked a Master Books representative, "How can you people possibly believe in a literal six-day creation of all things?" The implication, of course, was that it is simply naive to believe Genesis literally, in view of the overwhelming "scientific" evidence that the cosmos and the earth itself are billions of years old. The answer to his question is simple enough. We believe that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" because the One who made heaven and earth said He did it in six days! Furthermore, He even wrote down this revelation Himself on a tablet of stone (Exodus 20:11; 31:17,18). Perhaps it is naive to believe that God is able to tell the truth and say what He means, but I guess that's a weakness of us literalists! [and later] Call it naive literalism if you will. I call it simply taking God at His Word, and then seeking to explain all real scientific data in that context. We may not yet have answers to every problem, but at least our tentative answers are better than their false answers, because our answers are derived from implicit confidence in God's plainly revealed Word. Morris[^] Students taught these doctrines are not being given an education in science at all. Some of Morris's followers are less open about their a
I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science.
-
I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science.
Stan Shannon wrote: I have had conversations at length with people who claim to be creationist, and they certainly apply scientific like reasoning to their arguments. Their arguments are simply that scientists are not interpreting their own data correctly, and that the data actually supports the biblical explanation of existence. They have any number of disjointed, psudo-scientific, arguments to support thier views. Their entire goal is to lend scientific credibility to the biblical story of creation. Of course. All of the above applies to Morris and the rest. That doesn't change the fact that the conclusion has been determined in advance on religious grounds and that the scientific method is grossly corrupted in order to reach a conclusion that is against the evidence. There are occasionally creationists who retain their integrity and end up rejecting creationism, e.g., Glenn Morton site[^] but such people find that, even at the early stage before creationism is rejected, their search for truth attracts no support from their colleagues: Morton's change of beliefs[^] Stan Shannon wrote: Such reasoning is nothing less than an admission of defeat of the part of the religious community, and represents a futile last ditch attempt to use their enemy's on weapons against it. Evidence-based argument has been part of Christianity from its inception. Indeed, there are passages in the New Testament in which the writers appeal to evidence (including claims of eyewitness evidence). Reliance on "science" is merely the latest wrinkle in this and has been around for centuries. At the same time, Christianity has depended from its inception on an appeal to faith when the argument from evidence has gotten into difficulty. Nothing has changed. Stan Shannon wrote: In any such confrontation, religion will be the loser, not science. That may depend on who delivers the verdict. Faith is accessible to anyone who wants it (and plenty seem to). Scientific knowledge, by contrast, is vastly more difficult to acquire. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appe
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Where do people come up with the idea that there is a seperation of Church and State? the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion You answered your own question.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: You answered your own question. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment is speaking of the Congress establishing a state religion similar to the Church of England or the government established by the Pilgrims who had immigrated here. It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office or about Nativity scenes. The more "liberal" elements of our judiciary have redrawn the limits of what that statement means. Personally I see no harm in either Joe Lieberman being a practicing Jew, nor in George Bush professing his faith publicly so long as neither they or anyone else tries to interfere with anothers right to practice as they see fit. The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists.;) BTW... As a point of clarification although I would consider myself a Christian, I don't attend church regularly, and I wouldn't want to see my country ruled by a governmment that would ty to force my beliefs on others. I tend to think that most of the "Silent Minority":rolleyes: would tend to have the same outlook. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
"Carl Sagan, the astronomer, described Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) as one of the master explainers of the age to whom milllions of people, reading either his fact or his fiction, owe their knowledge of science. Here is his critique of the arguments of the New Right creationists he considers a new army of the right armed with Bibles. This article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982)... Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapiens itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years. But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate varieties of beings, and that there has been no evolutionary process. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so-called Bible Belt—creationists are in the majority. ... We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization and those nations that retain open scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simple-minded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish. " http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/asimov.html[^] "Jerry Falwell Proves That He is An Un-American Religious Profiteer Who is Opposed to Democracy The followin
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? The context of Asimov's piece was the attempts of the Christian right to force (by legislation, if necessary) the Christian version of creationism to be taught in science classes. His position was that what constituted respectable science should be determined by scientists. The Budhists, Muslims and Hindus were not at the forefront in trying to change the science curriculum. nssone wrote: Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. Asimov et al are not trying to stop people from going to church and all the rest. They are simply trying to stop them from determining the science curriculum. nssone wrote: As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. If creationism is taught as science, then science will be held back in much the same way as Soviet science was held back by the insistence that it conform to communist dogma (for example, Soviet biology was pushed in the direction of Lamarckism --- the inheritance of acquired characteristics --- because this was held to be more in keeping with communist ideology). John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan. This is the most intelligent statement I have read yet about all of these religious threads.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Daniel Ferguson wrote: You answered your own question. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment is speaking of the Congress establishing a state religion similar to the Church of England or the government established by the Pilgrims who had immigrated here. It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office or about Nativity scenes. The more "liberal" elements of our judiciary have redrawn the limits of what that statement means. Personally I see no harm in either Joe Lieberman being a practicing Jew, nor in George Bush professing his faith publicly so long as neither they or anyone else tries to interfere with anothers right to practice as they see fit. The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists.;) BTW... As a point of clarification although I would consider myself a Christian, I don't attend church regularly, and I wouldn't want to see my country ruled by a governmment that would ty to force my beliefs on others. I tend to think that most of the "Silent Minority":rolleyes: would tend to have the same outlook. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office As a Canadian, I don't know the details of the American system, but I think that elected officials should keep their religion in their personal/private life and avoid making important political decisions based on it. I would be upset if a Canadian elected official started talking about their faith in official speeches and making policy choices based on it. Bush has either crossed that line, or trod very close to it. How would you feel if (alternate-universe)Bush started talking about (his god) Allah in State of the Union Address? That's exactly how I feel about him talking about God. Doug Goulden wrote: The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists. And yet terrorists have not attacked other secular democracies such as Canada... strange that. Canada has not been interfering with politics in the middle east for our own profit or giving money and weapons to the likes of OBL and SH -- do you suppose that has anything to do with it?
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
-
Doug Goulden wrote: It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office As a Canadian, I don't know the details of the American system, but I think that elected officials should keep their religion in their personal/private life and avoid making important political decisions based on it. I would be upset if a Canadian elected official started talking about their faith in official speeches and making policy choices based on it. Bush has either crossed that line, or trod very close to it. How would you feel if (alternate-universe)Bush started talking about (his god) Allah in State of the Union Address? That's exactly how I feel about him talking about God. Doug Goulden wrote: The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists. And yet terrorists have not attacked other secular democracies such as Canada... strange that. Canada has not been interfering with politics in the middle east for our own profit or giving money and weapons to the likes of OBL and SH -- do you suppose that has anything to do with it?
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: And yet terrorists have not attacked other secular democracies such as Canada... strange that. Canada has not been interfering with politics in the middle east for our own profit or giving money and weapons to the likes of OBL and SH -- do you suppose that has anything to do with it? Naah.. you're just jumping to conclusions.. ;) -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?
-
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
Throughout history, christianity has always held true science back. Back in the good old days, folks who lay forth scientific evidence contradicting the christian doctrine got two alternatives; humiliation by "cleaning the mind" or burn at the stake. This creationist bullshit (christian or not) is basically the same thing, just less violent. Don't you think it's horrendous that some are taught that the world was created according to a really old and misintepreted book, when there is tons of evidence pointing away from it? You know.. the dinosaurs never existed. God planted the bones in the earth for our amusement. ;P -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?
-
Doug Goulden wrote: It says nothing of a person practicing their faith while in office As a Canadian, I don't know the details of the American system, but I think that elected officials should keep their religion in their personal/private life and avoid making important political decisions based on it. I would be upset if a Canadian elected official started talking about their faith in official speeches and making policy choices based on it. Bush has either crossed that line, or trod very close to it. How would you feel if (alternate-universe)Bush started talking about (his god) Allah in State of the Union Address? That's exactly how I feel about him talking about God. Doug Goulden wrote: The framers of the Constitution merely seemed to be trying to prevent the formation of a theocracy, a concept which seems to place us in conflict with some of the more radical Muslim fundamentalists. And yet terrorists have not attacked other secular democracies such as Canada... strange that. Canada has not been interfering with politics in the middle east for our own profit or giving money and weapons to the likes of OBL and SH -- do you suppose that has anything to do with it?
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: How would you feel if (alternate-universe)Bush started talking about (his god) Allah in State of the Union Address? That's exactly how I feel about him talking about God. I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of Bush (or Joe Lieberman) mentioning the fact that they have faith in whatever they believed, so long as they were not trying to force their religion on me. If you look at the framers of the Constitution and the Decleration of Independence it is pretty obvious that they belived in some greater power, they were just unwilling to force those beliefs on others. As it stands now, in the States, Atheists would force their beliefs (or lack of them) on others while trying to prevent others from practicing theirs. IMO the Muslim, the Jew, the Christian or the Atheist have an equal right to practice their beliefs. People who don't believe that it OK for others to follow their beliefs have caused more hate and wars than probably anything else. The only real requirement that I see as far as religion should be concerned is that your practice shouldn't interfere with someone elses rights, should a devout Christian or Jew have the right to speak as they wish? Daniel Ferguson wrote: And yet terrorists have not attacked other secular democracies such as Canada... strange that. Canada has not been interfering with politics in the middle east for our own profit or giving money and weapons to the likes of OBL and SH -- do you suppose that has anything to do with it? I don't think that OBL and Al Quada see Canada or a lot of the other nations as the symbol that the US is. Not intending any offense, but Canada has never taken a stand per say on the world stage like the US has. Has the US mishandled events in the past? Sure we have, supporting SH after the rise of Muslim fundementalism in Iran, seemed like a good idea at the time, what if Iran's government had managed to influence other nations in the region instead of fighting a long term war against Iraq? What would our world look like today if most of the Muslim countries looked like Iran? Does that make it right? Probably not, but hindsight is always better:sigh: than foresight. Many f the political decisions made in history have been made for what seemed like expedient reasons at the time. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
nssone wrote: In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan. This is the most intelligent statement I have read yet about all of these religious threads.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blogi thought about voting you a '5' to offset the 2 '1's you'd already received for this innocuous post. Then i realized how ludicrous this would be - it is a frank statement of appreciation for another's words, and deserves neither excess praise nor condemnation. So i'll give you another '1', just to make it that much more obvious. :sigh: Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
I find it appalling that a right-winger like me has to be accused of being a creationist. I'm an atheist. I've never been to church, never been baptised, never read the bible, and only grew up with the stories of the bible through the media, not at home. Granted this appears to be extremist right-wing, not a moderate like me. I agree with the seperation of church and state, but I don't see how creationism is holding back science so much. And what's with this crap about it being definate that the world was created 4.5 billion years and we evolved and yadda yadda yadda? I believe it was that way, but there's still no way of telling for sure what has really happened yars and years ago before written history and before humans walked the Earth. And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? They are not proven to be more open-minded than Jews and Christians when it comes to conflicting theories on the creation of the universe. Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. In my eyes, it's all types of ignorances that hold back science, including the ignorance of Carl Sagan.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. "Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?" -- Stephen Jay Gould
-
Throughout history, christianity has always held true science back. Back in the good old days, folks who lay forth scientific evidence contradicting the christian doctrine got two alternatives; humiliation by "cleaning the mind" or burn at the stake. This creationist bullshit (christian or not) is basically the same thing, just less violent. Don't you think it's horrendous that some are taught that the world was created according to a really old and misintepreted book, when there is tons of evidence pointing away from it? You know.. the dinosaurs never existed. God planted the bones in the earth for our amusement. ;P -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: You know.. the dinosaurs never existed. God planted the bones in the earth for our amusement. My grandmother said that she was taught as a child that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil in order to deceive people. :wtf: ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
nssone wrote: I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. "Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?" -- Stephen Jay Gould
How fair of a world is it that we live in when stories in books I read in school on Hindu religion are called 'mytholgies', when I've never heard the story of Noah's Ark ever referred to as a mythology. How do we know it to be false? Have these teachers and scientists been around for billions of years to tell us for sure? They make up the minds for general public? It appears to me that they are in and of themselves are as bad as religions, that they too are holding back the search for the truth. Why must we teach anything on creation? Why must we pursue the truth about the history of life, universe and beyond? Because we're humans and we're always searching for truth and reasoning, some just find it in ways different from others. And once again, I'm anti-fundamentalist and I don't like religions period. But since I haven't been around for billions of years to know the absolute truth about everything, I can't say what truly happened years ago before humans could collect history or attempt to explain the times before known history. And niether can these a--hole scientists.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
i thought about voting you a '5' to offset the 2 '1's you'd already received for this innocuous post. Then i realized how ludicrous this would be - it is a frank statement of appreciation for another's words, and deserves neither excess praise nor condemnation. So i'll give you another '1', just to make it that much more obvious. :sigh: Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
WTF, was he voted down because he liked my statment? Or becuase he praised it? I personally appreciate the praises I get for such statements. How could you people be so mean to him for such a thing as positively commenting on my statement? Even if I voted him a 5 now, he would still only get a 1.8 rating. I guess you people would see it as unfair to vote on his post, so I won't.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
nssone wrote: And how come they seem only to be attacking the Judao-Christian belief on creation, not Buddhist, not Islamic, not Hinduism either. They have their own sets of beliefs on creation ism as well, yet we ignore them why? The context of Asimov's piece was the attempts of the Christian right to force (by legislation, if necessary) the Christian version of creationism to be taught in science classes. His position was that what constituted respectable science should be determined by scientists. The Budhists, Muslims and Hindus were not at the forefront in trying to change the science curriculum. nssone wrote: Yet our Society is based on the idea that all ideas and religions are accepted. Asimov et al are not trying to stop people from going to church and all the rest. They are simply trying to stop them from determining the science curriculum. nssone wrote: As much as I still don't like and don't believe in Christianity, I still think it's unfair for them to say that Christianity itself is holding back science. If creationism is taught as science, then science will be held back in much the same way as Soviet science was held back by the insistence that it conform to communist dogma (for example, Soviet biology was pushed in the direction of Lamarckism --- the inheritance of acquired characteristics --- because this was held to be more in keeping with communist ideology). John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: The context of Asimov's piece was the attempts of the Christian right to force (by legislation, if necessary) the Christian version of creationism to be taught in science classes. His position was that what constituted respectable science should be determined by scientists. The Budhists, Muslims and Hindus were not at the forefront in trying to change the science curriculum. Why not take such pre-historical references away from science classes period and only work on current sciences like Earth Science and Astronomy and such. Then create new classes called 'Creation Theory' and talk about all types of creationist theories, from Big Bang to Genesis (I don't know any of the stories of the major religions). Religion still holds a purpose for most as they were building blocks for our current societies and helped to teach morals through stories and explain what humans could not understand at the time. But is acceptable to say that nothing in these stories were true or never happened? Or to completely ignore them from our perspectives on how things happened in the past? I was aminly ranting on how Sagan and Asimov were so blunt to say "This is how it happened", they were being just as bad as the Pope.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
How fair of a world is it that we live in when stories in books I read in school on Hindu religion are called 'mytholgies', when I've never heard the story of Noah's Ark ever referred to as a mythology. How do we know it to be false? Have these teachers and scientists been around for billions of years to tell us for sure? They make up the minds for general public? It appears to me that they are in and of themselves are as bad as religions, that they too are holding back the search for the truth. Why must we teach anything on creation? Why must we pursue the truth about the history of life, universe and beyond? Because we're humans and we're always searching for truth and reasoning, some just find it in ways different from others. And once again, I'm anti-fundamentalist and I don't like religions period. But since I haven't been around for billions of years to know the absolute truth about everything, I can't say what truly happened years ago before humans could collect history or attempt to explain the times before known history. And niether can these a--hole scientists.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: How fair of a world is it that we live in when stories in books I read in school on Hindu religion are called 'mytholgies', when I've never heard the story of Noah's Ark ever referred to as a mythology. Noah's Ark story is a myth and should be referred to as such. And if it isn't called a myth, it is not due to any validity that it holds but due to enormous influence that Christian dogma still holds over the western societies. nssone wrote: How do we know it to be false? The burden of proof is on the "supporters" of the myths. We don't have to prove them wrong, we did not make their stories up - they did. We know that Christian myths are false, because there is no convincing evidence supporting them and there is plenty of evidence contradicting them. nssone wrote: Have these teachers and scientists been around for billions of years to tell us for sure? Let's say you come home and find that someone was murdered in your house while you were gone. There is no witnesses of the crime. How do we know that you were not the murderer? Well, we look at the evidence, right? Of course, it would be cool to have a video recording of the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but due to lack of such "sure" evidence we have to rely on the best alternative for discovering truth about our world we have to date - scientific method. nssone wrote: They make up the minds for general public? It appears to me that they are in and of themselves are as bad as religions, that they too are holding back the search for the truth. All the scientific evidence is available to the general public. Everyone is free to go to a library, get a book, read about and even verify for themselves any of the scientific knowledge that we have today. And if the general public is too lazy and/or too ignorant to look at the scientific evidence and they choose to believe in psychics and astrology it is very sad. The difference between religion and science is that you don't have to believe science blindly, you are encouraged to think for yourself and participate in discoveries. And if one day you will discover that Einstein was wrong and will be able to prove it you will not be burned at stake, but will likely to nominated for a Nobel Prize. nssone wrote: But since I haven't been around for billions of years to know the absolute truth about everything, I can't say what truly happened years
-
nssone wrote: How fair of a world is it that we live in when stories in books I read in school on Hindu religion are called 'mytholgies', when I've never heard the story of Noah's Ark ever referred to as a mythology. Noah's Ark story is a myth and should be referred to as such. And if it isn't called a myth, it is not due to any validity that it holds but due to enormous influence that Christian dogma still holds over the western societies. nssone wrote: How do we know it to be false? The burden of proof is on the "supporters" of the myths. We don't have to prove them wrong, we did not make their stories up - they did. We know that Christian myths are false, because there is no convincing evidence supporting them and there is plenty of evidence contradicting them. nssone wrote: Have these teachers and scientists been around for billions of years to tell us for sure? Let's say you come home and find that someone was murdered in your house while you were gone. There is no witnesses of the crime. How do we know that you were not the murderer? Well, we look at the evidence, right? Of course, it would be cool to have a video recording of the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but due to lack of such "sure" evidence we have to rely on the best alternative for discovering truth about our world we have to date - scientific method. nssone wrote: They make up the minds for general public? It appears to me that they are in and of themselves are as bad as religions, that they too are holding back the search for the truth. All the scientific evidence is available to the general public. Everyone is free to go to a library, get a book, read about and even verify for themselves any of the scientific knowledge that we have today. And if the general public is too lazy and/or too ignorant to look at the scientific evidence and they choose to believe in psychics and astrology it is very sad. The difference between religion and science is that you don't have to believe science blindly, you are encouraged to think for yourself and participate in discoveries. And if one day you will discover that Einstein was wrong and will be able to prove it you will not be burned at stake, but will likely to nominated for a Nobel Prize. nssone wrote: But since I haven't been around for billions of years to know the absolute truth about everything, I can't say what truly happened years
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Can you be sure that the world is not just a fiction of your imagination? The word is figment. People read and examine and interpret 'evidence' differently, the human mind sees things in different perspectives. I have seen reports on finding evidence that supports biblical accounts of history, but not just word-of-mouth type evidence, but scientifically proving the stories of the bible. That's no worse than what Asimov or Sagan do. And then they have their supporters of the 'evidence' they've found. That evidence is available to the general public, I've found many books on Christian Sciences as well. And people participate in discoveries on the stories of the bible, they do archaelogical digs and such to find evidence of such stories in the bible. Some are contradicted, some aren't. That's the evolution of science. Science has changed through many years as has religion. You want proof of how much science has changed? Look at some of the pre-industrial theories of what the universe is how the earth revolves and all that, there's proof of change. Those were popular scientific discoveries until somebody else came around and showed new evidence of how things are. I doubt we know the final answers on the creation of the universe and our existence in the universe. You can think freely about religion if you want, how else would Mormons have come around? We all seem to be stuck in this idea that everything was a big bang and evolution and all that such, much like Christians and Genesis. And what if the end all be all answer to the creation of Earth was that it was created in 7 days and 7 nights and it is only 10,000 years old and we were wrong because our methods were wrong?
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
WTF, was he voted down because he liked my statment? Or becuase he praised it? I personally appreciate the praises I get for such statements. How could you people be so mean to him for such a thing as positively commenting on my statement? Even if I voted him a 5 now, he would still only get a 1.8 rating. I guess you people would see it as unfair to vote on his post, so I won't.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
Don't sweat it. I'm religious so my thoughts (no matter how objective) are meaningless. I'm some kind of mindless drone. :rolleyes:
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog