12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
-
John Fisher wrote: It's extremely difficult for me not to be hurt or angry at your comments. Well, this is the soapbox. But I'll assume that you must be a reasonable intelligent person to be visiting this site. That's why it infurates me so much that otherwise intelligent people can honestly allow themselves to be so completely fooled. How can somebody be a programmer (a job that requires a mastery of logic) be so totally illogical? John Fisher wrote: So, the people who truly believe both (the ones I admire most) wouldn't be intentionally deceptive. No matter what you might think. Well, I'm sure you're say this isn't a creationist you admire, but here you go 300 Creationist Lies Index[^]. Maybe you really don't realise just how much blatant lying these people are doing to deceive you, but for god sake take off you blinders for a second. These people are neither christians or scientists, they are frauds and con-men who are playing on your deeply held believes for power and profit.
Wjousts wrote: Well, this is the soapbox. I know, and while what I said was true, I was mostly trying to calm you down a bit. ;) Wjousts wrote: But I'll assume that you must be a reasonable intelligent person to be visiting this site. CodeProject and I both thank you for the compliment. (And I send it back your way, too. There are a lot of people who believe in evolution without really studying it. You have given me good links and it shows that you aren't an accidental believer.) Wjousts wrote: That's why it infurates me so much that otherwise intelligent people can honestly allow themselves to be so completely fooled. How can somebody be a programmer (a job that requires a mastery of logic) be so totally illogical? The answer at least partially lies in the nature of logic (and my previous mention of belief frameworks). Logic is nothing without assumptions. In the first lesson or two of my college logic class, that was made clear. In teaching logic, they would give us assumptions like "All water is purple" and "Fred likes everything purple". While it is quite likely that neither of those statements are true, we were quite logical in concluding that "Fred likes water". (Maybe I've not answered your question well enough?) Wjousts wrote: Well, I'm sure you're say this isn't a creationist you admire, but here you go 300 Creationist Lies Index[^]. It won't be a surprise that I don't put much stock in Kent Hovind, but the reasons I don't might be of interest to you. (I read several pages of the stuff you linked to, so I had a good understanding of what it was about. I know good answers to the supposed Bible contradictions that the pastor-turned-athiest listed. The fact that he was ever a pastor amazes me because of the simplicity in answering some of them.) Anyway, as far as Hovind goes... I watched his series of tapes (given to me by a well meaning Christian friend). They left a bad taste in my mouth. His arguments were sloppy and he came off as incredibly arrogant (which some people find entertaining). My wife can't stand visible arrogance, so she wouldn't watch them with me! There are several other indicators that made me consider his material as insignificant at best. Many of them revolved around things taught by the Bible (arrogance is sin, we are to be diligent in our study and work for God, etc.) In other words, you're right that I don't admire him. As
-
My framework springs from the data, it doesn't attempt to fit the data to the theory. My framework makes testible predications and is falsifible, yours if not. Every part of the mechanism of my framework can be demonstrated, no part of yours can. My framework fits neatly within the sum total of human knowledge and is logically consitent, yours is not. You framework requires magic, my requires nothing but math and the laws of physics and chemistry. My framework is subject to peer review and stands up to critism, your is insulated and hidden away whenever somebody tries to challenge you on specific points. My framework can produce evidence to back up it's claims, yours cannot. If my framework is proven to be false, I'll change it, you never will.
Apparently you know more about my belief framework that I assumed you did. Would you please write it out, so I can verify that you are talking about my beliefs, rather than something else? Wjousts wrote: Every part of the mechanism of my framework can be demonstrated Assuming that your framework includes standard evolutionary arguments. There are very large parts of it that cannot be demonstrated. Speciation has occurred and mutations have erased or corrupted existing genetic information, but no mechanism has been observed that generates new genetic information or that one kind of being has turned into another kind. (Speciation is mostly one group of animals that was previously able to breed separating into groups that are later incapable of inter-breeding due to degeneration and loss of genetic information.) Wjousts wrote: My framework fits neatly within the sum total of human knowledge and is logically consitent Lots of evolutionists argue about the right way to explain various phenomena. Are you prepared to provide your answers for them? Wjousts wrote: You framework requires magic, My framework requires no magic, and as a matter of fact, people with similar frameworks are largely responsible for the development of science as we know it. Wjousts wrote: my requires nothing but math and the laws of physics and chemistry It also happens to require belief in the multitude of assumptions that evolutionists base their theories upon, since most of them are unprovable. (No time machines.) Wjousts wrote: My framework is subject to peer review and stands up to critism Interestingly enough, the theory of evolution was accepted into popular culture largely on the basis of hoaxes like Piltdown man. Once it was common belief, people no longer cared whether one of the arguments was a hoax, since they had already accepted the belief. Wjousts wrote: your is insulated and hidden away whenever somebody tries to challenge you on specific points If that were the case, I wouldn't be talking with you, would I? I'm prepared to take some time and point you to specific articles and to read the information you point me to. I can't take large amounts of time, but the answers aren't hidden. Wjousts wrote: If my framework is proven to be false, I'll change it, you never will.
-
John Fisher wrote: It appears that you have ignored the part of my post which would answer the question you just raised, so I'll post it again. No you appear to have missed the point. You say the tree thing isn't meant to be taken literally, but yet you claim the whole creationist thing is and the whole gays are evil thing is. How can you claim parts of the bible are literal truth and other parts aren't. Is that arogant of you to the extreme to suppose to know which parts of a supposedly holy text are actually true and which aren't? The tree thing is clearly false, so you write it off as not meaning to be taken literally, the creationism thing is false (despite what you think - the facts speak for themselves) and the majority of biblical scholars have writen that off as being "just a story". So why should we give any credit to anything else in the bible? So much of it is clearly wrong, so why accept any of it all? If I had a science text book with this many errors I'd confine it to my trash can.
Just look at the context. The "tree thing" is incidental to the story. The author could have said, "the tree was 1,000,000 feet tall" and the meaning of the vision would have been completely unchanged. People use figures of speech all the time. Without them, language would be less useful. Restricting the Bible to a subset of language forms would be unrealistic. In contrast, the "creationist thing" is the whole point of the passages that refer to it. Those statements are obviously not figurative or the meaning would be lost. Same with the information that applies to the moral state of homosexuality. All of the Bible is true, but you need read it like you would read anything else. When I tell you that "I'm walking on air" you know exactly what I mean, without assuming that I am litterally walking somewhere about the ground. This is a part of language, good communication takes advantage of these things, and it is generally quite easy to tell the difference. In fact, elementary English students are taught how to discover things like similes and metaphors. BTW, whether you own them, there are many science text books with errors all over the place. One big one is that some still teach that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That was disproven about 50 years ago. Sounds like someone (besides the creationists you dislike) has an agenda to me. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Rob Graham wrote: The geologic record (and I don't mean fossils, but just rocks and rock formations) makes it quite clear that the world has been around for millenai befor man arraived on the scene (by whatever mechanism - I don't need evolution to contradict the 7 day bullsit, just physics). The geologic record is simply a pile of rocks. There is stuff in them. None of those things have date labels. All of the methods that evolutionists use to date them are based upon unproven assumptions. This is not proof. Again, the problem is with interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself. (As an interesting aside, the origins of the geologic record are based solely on circular reasoning -- i.e. the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils.) Oh, and these piles of rocks are actually one of the stronger evidences for Creationism. The only good way to get layers of rock like that (and the fossils in them) is to bury things quickly (like in a flood or volcanic eruption). [edit] This sort of thing has been observed just a few years ago at Mt. St. Helens. I would tend to call that evidence... [/edit] Rob Graham wrote: There is no evidence that supports that timescale for creation of the universe to the emergence of humankind. There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. Take a look at www.answersingenesis.org or any of the other sites that provide it. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. (And just to remind you, evidence doesn't come with built-in interpretations. They come as people try to dicipher what the evidence means.) Rob Graham wrote: The fundamental theory is unchanged since Darwin, a few refinements on the mechanisms at work, but no substantive changes. Then what about the people who changed the model from Darwin's suggestion to mutation? How about the evolutionists arguing among themselve about things like the "hopeful monster" theory. Why the arguments between solid-state and big bang theories? Why so many variations on the big-bang theory itself? These are not minor disputes, they affect the very basics of the evolutionary explanation. (The only thing truly in common between all the evolutionary theories is that the world and universe are really, really, really old.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as sJohn Fisher wrote: There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. :laugh::laugh::laugh: To quote Heinlein, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." I find Creationism so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant the respect of a decent argument, but I find no harm done to me by others who choose to believe it. I wish them well, and hope that it brings them much happiness, as well as bolstering their faith in the Creator. My faith is strengthened by Evolution Theory, in that its beauty and logic are so subtle and complex, yet so simple - a work of art and genius that we have yet to fully appreciate. Only an intelligence far beyond our capability could have imagined it, let alone set it in motion and let it work its magic. Stick to your guns, man, no matter what others have to say, if it brings you happiness and draws you closer to your God.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true... -
John Fisher wrote: There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. :laugh::laugh::laugh: To quote Heinlein, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." I find Creationism so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant the respect of a decent argument, but I find no harm done to me by others who choose to believe it. I wish them well, and hope that it brings them much happiness, as well as bolstering their faith in the Creator. My faith is strengthened by Evolution Theory, in that its beauty and logic are so subtle and complex, yet so simple - a work of art and genius that we have yet to fully appreciate. Only an intelligence far beyond our capability could have imagined it, let alone set it in motion and let it work its magic. Stick to your guns, man, no matter what others have to say, if it brings you happiness and draws you closer to your God.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...Roger, I've been thinking this for a while, and now seems as good a time as any to say it...I think that our world views are very different but I always enjoy your contributions. You seem to be that rarest of all species --- someone who thinks for himself, a true original. You are impossible to pigeon-hole but have lots of interesting things to say. Keep it up.:rose: 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 Fisher wrote: There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. :laugh::laugh::laugh: To quote Heinlein, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." I find Creationism so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant the respect of a decent argument, but I find no harm done to me by others who choose to believe it. I wish them well, and hope that it brings them much happiness, as well as bolstering their faith in the Creator. My faith is strengthened by Evolution Theory, in that its beauty and logic are so subtle and complex, yet so simple - a work of art and genius that we have yet to fully appreciate. Only an intelligence far beyond our capability could have imagined it, let alone set it in motion and let it work its magic. Stick to your guns, man, no matter what others have to say, if it brings you happiness and draws you closer to your God.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...*sigh* The ability to humorously defend ones position without providing any real argument is entertaining, but not really worth much else. At any rate. The evidence is available for anyone to see. You've got the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists still haven't satisfactorily explained its formation, while Noah's Flood results in a perfectly logical reason for it to be there (assuming you allow for the Flood). There are large fossil beds buried in many places around the world. The size of some of them is measured in miles. On both sides, people agree that quick burial is the only way for that to happen. Evolutionists resort to a multitude of imagined catastrophes, while Creationists see it as evidence of the historical Noah's Flood. People groups around the world have had stories of a great flood before any Bible-believers showed up to teach it to them. How odd -- maybe it really happened! Anyway, you pretty much said that you wouldn't read this, so I'll stop. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Chris Losinger wrote: The US Is Not A Theocracy. Quite true. Chris Losinger wrote: it may be a valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage. but that doesn't make it a valid reason for making laws. Quite false. I and many other U.S. citizens believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong. We are part of "the people" who make up these United States. By virtue of our citizenship (and in line with the observation you made that his law could be completely arbitrary) any reason is a valid reason to make a law. BTW, I did vote down your post from the 5 it was given. Normally I don't do that, but your comment was just plain bad logic. (At least it was inconsitent with the logic of your previous post.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Quite false i disagree. there's a difference between saying "Law X should based on the Bible" and "I support law X because of the Bible". the first is a theocracy. the second is voting in accordance with your beliefs. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
*sigh* The ability to humorously defend ones position without providing any real argument is entertaining, but not really worth much else. At any rate. The evidence is available for anyone to see. You've got the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists still haven't satisfactorily explained its formation, while Noah's Flood results in a perfectly logical reason for it to be there (assuming you allow for the Flood). There are large fossil beds buried in many places around the world. The size of some of them is measured in miles. On both sides, people agree that quick burial is the only way for that to happen. Evolutionists resort to a multitude of imagined catastrophes, while Creationists see it as evidence of the historical Noah's Flood. People groups around the world have had stories of a great flood before any Bible-believers showed up to teach it to them. How odd -- maybe it really happened! Anyway, you pretty much said that you wouldn't read this, so I'll stop. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: You've got the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists still haven't satisfactorily explained its formation I apologise, but I'm going to quibble your terminology here - "evolutionist" is a meaningless term when referring to specific scientific disciplines. So wouldn't it be the task of geologists to explain it's formation (and lets face it - geologists usually have little to do with biological evolution)? I wouldn't expect a biologist or paeleontologist of some description (ie, what you most likely mean to me to be an "evolutionist") to be able to explain land formations any more than I'd expect a cordon bleu pastry chef to explain C++ templates. And while I'm not a geologist, there are answers obvious to a layman such as myself that might be suitable starting points for further investigation. One is the notion that a glacier was involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the other is that erosion due to a river was involved in the formation. You know, like how Niagra falls is slowly moving further upstream due to the river that goes to it. Given enough time, all rocks turn into sand if you throw enough water over it. Anyway, I won't claim these are correct, because I'm a layman. So I did some googling. This is covered and apparently refuted in the link to Creationist Claims I posted earlier. If this claim is to be accepted, you need to address the points made there[^]. I look forward to reading them.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Brian Gideon wrote: The argument goes something like this, if we allow gay marriage based on equal protection of rights then we have to allow plural marriages as well. Or maybe this is a moot argument? I think it's a moot point - the two are largely independant. Comparing straight and gay marriages, all we're changing is the gender of one party - which isn't particularly problematic in purely legislative terms. When dealing with an n-pluralistic marriage, we have (n2 - n)/2 consents to marriage (as you have to have all people agreeing to marry all the others, to be fair about it). This (obviously) makes things such as divorce and property laws (etc) considerably more complicated, something that gay marriages don't do. You'd also have to factor in the various economic aspects - an employer might reasonably provide healthcare costs for a worker and their (single) spouse and any children, but providing it for an arbitrary number of spouses? So for the time being, while I can accept that a pluralistic marriage where all parties agree to be married to each other is not an unreasonable thing to want, the legal problems that arises from allowing it are considerably greater than those raised from just allowing arbitrary 2-people marriages. So is it just to deny marriages to gay people now on the grounds that people inclined to a pluralistic marriage might want the same right, even though there's actually no real link between them and their legal requirements?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
That's a very good point Ian. Poly relationships certainly seem to be right for some, but the legal implications are a minefield. From a social perspective, I would also imagine they're inherantly less stable. It's difficult enough to find an equal partner in a 2-way relationship, let alone an n-partner one. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Just look at the context. The "tree thing" is incidental to the story. The author could have said, "the tree was 1,000,000 feet tall" and the meaning of the vision would have been completely unchanged. People use figures of speech all the time. Without them, language would be less useful. Restricting the Bible to a subset of language forms would be unrealistic. In contrast, the "creationist thing" is the whole point of the passages that refer to it. Those statements are obviously not figurative or the meaning would be lost. Same with the information that applies to the moral state of homosexuality. All of the Bible is true, but you need read it like you would read anything else. When I tell you that "I'm walking on air" you know exactly what I mean, without assuming that I am litterally walking somewhere about the ground. This is a part of language, good communication takes advantage of these things, and it is generally quite easy to tell the difference. In fact, elementary English students are taught how to discover things like similes and metaphors. BTW, whether you own them, there are many science text books with errors all over the place. One big one is that some still teach that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That was disproven about 50 years ago. Sounds like someone (besides the creationists you dislike) has an agenda to me. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: BTW, whether you own them, there are many science text books with errors all over the place. One big one is that some still teach that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That was disproven about 50 years ago. Sounds like someone (besides the creationists you dislike) has an agenda to me. Well, of course they're are, that's because theories change over time in light of new experimental evidence (this is the major difference between science and religion) and text books take a major effort to write so any published text book is likely to be slightly out of date in places as soon as it's published. On top of that, not all text books writers are created (or evolved) equal and some are just saving the corrections for the next edition so they can fleece the students again. As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" it's just another creationist trick to dig up stuff that has long since been rejected by the scientific community and claim that it means the scientists don't know what they are talking about. What creationists don't realise is that rejecting old theories when new evidence comes along is exactly the strength of science and the weakness of religion.
-
John Fisher wrote: There is plenty of evidence to support a 6,000 to 10,000 year timeframe for the earth. :laugh::laugh::laugh: To quote Heinlein, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." I find Creationism so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant the respect of a decent argument, but I find no harm done to me by others who choose to believe it. I wish them well, and hope that it brings them much happiness, as well as bolstering their faith in the Creator. My faith is strengthened by Evolution Theory, in that its beauty and logic are so subtle and complex, yet so simple - a work of art and genius that we have yet to fully appreciate. Only an intelligence far beyond our capability could have imagined it, let alone set it in motion and let it work its magic. Stick to your guns, man, no matter what others have to say, if it brings you happiness and draws you closer to your God.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...Roger Wright wrote: To quote Heinlein, "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." That's a great line, I must remember that one :laugh::laugh: Roger Wright wrote: I find Creationism so ludicrous that it doesn't warrant the respect of a decent argument, but I find no harm done to me by others who choose to believe it. I wish them well, and hope that it brings them much happiness, as well as bolstering their faith in the Creator. That's all well and fine, just so long as they stay off school boards I really have no problem with them believing whatever they want. If they want to stare the facts straight in the face and conclude something completely orthogonal to logic, it's their problem.
-
Trollslayer wrote: payable in swiss chocolate i could live off Lindt milk-chocolate. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: i could live off Lindt milk-chocolate. In that case I'll have the dark stuff you don't eat. ;) Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Hey, quit being a jerk. Nobody has difinitive prove that creationism is false and nobody can prove evolution either. So just cool your jets and think about what you just said and how much of a jerk you and others are being. He believes in God, so how does that hurt you? There are billions of people that have examined the evidence on both sides and have found the theory of evolution wanting, and I am one of them. Logic doesn't solve all problems.
"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
blogJason Henderson wrote: Nobody has difinitive prove that creationism is false and nobody can prove evolution either. Only in the sense that nobody can prove gravity or atomic theory and nobody can disprove that I have an invisible dragon living in my garage or that I was dancing with invisible pixies last night. Jason Henderson wrote: He believes in God, so how does that hurt you? Well, this is the crux of the issue. When creationists get on school boards and start messing up the education of the future generation of scientists, it hurts everybody. Here's an example, Russia produces many fine physicist, chemists and engineers, but that are sadly behind in biology because Stalin supported a certain flavor of evolutional theory called Lamarckism despite the fact that it had be proven to be false. Stalin supported it only because he felt it was more in tune with communist ideals because of it's "inheritance of acquired traits" (which doesn't happen). This is a clear example of the damage that can be done when people mix ideology with science. That, in a nutshell, is why it matters.
-
My take is that a truely secular government should only recognize marriage as a civil union and nothing more. All this banging on about the "sanctity" of marriage is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state (IMHO). The government should have no role in deciding the sanctity of anything. All marriages should be considered civil unions by the government and the church can decide if they are sacred or not. That way homosexual couple can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (civil unions) and be recognized by the government to have the same status, but no church is going to be forced to like it or endorse it. People's churches can continue to be the comfortable little bastions of bigotry they've always been and the rest of society can move on.
Wjousts wrote: People's churches can continue to be the comfortable little bastions of bigotry they've always been and the rest of society can move on. ..and you were doing so well..;P A solid 4. Nothing says tolerance like "I hate organized religion" :rolleyes: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
John Fisher wrote: Quite false i disagree. there's a difference between saying "Law X should based on the Bible" and "I support law X because of the Bible". the first is a theocracy. the second is voting in accordance with your beliefs. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a difference between saying "Law X should based on the Bible" and "I support law X because of the Bible". In reference to making a law in our country, there is no practical difference. The reasons why people made the law are irrelevent. The fact that the law was made is the significant part. BTW, most of the original laws of our country (in fact, the Constitution itself) was based largely on principles from the Bible. And if you'd like to argue about that, I'll kindly leave it alone. Reading the writings of the founding fathers themselves will make that plenty clear. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Jason Henderson wrote: Nobody has difinitive prove that creationism is false and nobody can prove evolution either. Only in the sense that nobody can prove gravity or atomic theory and nobody can disprove that I have an invisible dragon living in my garage or that I was dancing with invisible pixies last night. Jason Henderson wrote: He believes in God, so how does that hurt you? Well, this is the crux of the issue. When creationists get on school boards and start messing up the education of the future generation of scientists, it hurts everybody. Here's an example, Russia produces many fine physicist, chemists and engineers, but that are sadly behind in biology because Stalin supported a certain flavor of evolutional theory called Lamarckism despite the fact that it had be proven to be false. Stalin supported it only because he felt it was more in tune with communist ideals because of it's "inheritance of acquired traits" (which doesn't happen). This is a clear example of the damage that can be done when people mix ideology with science. That, in a nutshell, is why it matters.
Wjousts wrote: Russia produces many fine physicist, chemists and engineers, but that are sadly behind in biology because Stalin supported a certain flavor of evolutional theory called Lamarckism despite the fact that it had be proven to be false. Stalin supported it only because he felt it was more in tune with communist ideals because of it's "inheritance of acquired traits" (which doesn't happen). This is a clear example of the damage that can be done when people mix ideology with science. That, in a nutshell, is why it matters.
Lysenkoismis the term for this sort of interference (named after Lysenko, who implemented this policy in Russia, and in doing so set back their genetics research by about three decades)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
John Fisher wrote: BTW, whether you own them, there are many science text books with errors all over the place. One big one is that some still teach that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That was disproven about 50 years ago. Sounds like someone (besides the creationists you dislike) has an agenda to me. Well, of course they're are, that's because theories change over time in light of new experimental evidence (this is the major difference between science and religion) and text books take a major effort to write so any published text book is likely to be slightly out of date in places as soon as it's published. On top of that, not all text books writers are created (or evolved) equal and some are just saving the corrections for the next edition so they can fleece the students again. As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" it's just another creationist trick to dig up stuff that has long since been rejected by the scientific community and claim that it means the scientists don't know what they are talking about. What creationists don't realise is that rejecting old theories when new evidence comes along is exactly the strength of science and the weakness of religion.
Wjousts wrote: As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" it's just another creationist trick to dig up stuff that has long since been rejected by the scientific community and claim that it means the scientists don't know what they are talking about. These books have been newly published in the last 5 years. They still teach as fact an idea that has been falsified over 50 years ago. Why is it defensible for people to teach evolution that way, and incorrect for me to point out the deception involved. If that is a "creationist trick", then why is it not a trick for you to do the same to creationist arguments that we have abandoned due to further study? Wjousts wrote: What creationists don't realise is that rejecting old theories when new evidence comes along is exactly the strength of science and the weakness of religion. Contrary to your experience, there are plenty of creationists who discard old scientific ideas in favor of better ones all the time. Discarding the framework is another issue altogether. (For evidence, take a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp[^] and this one will be interesting because of your previous link to a critique of Kent Hovind. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp[^]) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: You've got the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists still haven't satisfactorily explained its formation I apologise, but I'm going to quibble your terminology here - "evolutionist" is a meaningless term when referring to specific scientific disciplines. So wouldn't it be the task of geologists to explain it's formation (and lets face it - geologists usually have little to do with biological evolution)? I wouldn't expect a biologist or paeleontologist of some description (ie, what you most likely mean to me to be an "evolutionist") to be able to explain land formations any more than I'd expect a cordon bleu pastry chef to explain C++ templates. And while I'm not a geologist, there are answers obvious to a layman such as myself that might be suitable starting points for further investigation. One is the notion that a glacier was involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the other is that erosion due to a river was involved in the formation. You know, like how Niagra falls is slowly moving further upstream due to the river that goes to it. Given enough time, all rocks turn into sand if you throw enough water over it. Anyway, I won't claim these are correct, because I'm a layman. So I did some googling. This is covered and apparently refuted in the link to Creationist Claims I posted earlier. If this claim is to be accepted, you need to address the points made there[^]. I look forward to reading them.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: I apologise, but I'm going to quibble your terminology here - "evolutionist" is a meaningless term when referring to specific scientific disciplines. So wouldn't it be the task of geologists to explain it's formation (and lets face it - geologists usually have little to do with biological evolution)? Well, the debate is over whether creationism or some form of evolutionism better explains the existence of said rock formation. So, whether you pick a biologist or a geologist, the evolutionary defense would presumably come from one who is also an evolutionist. Ian Darling wrote: One is the notion that a glacier was involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the other is that erosion due to a river was involved in the formation. Those arguments initially sound reasonable, and I have encountered them before. But, you provided a link that you want me to address. I won't have time until after work, so you can expect another post later. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a difference between saying "Law X should based on the Bible" and "I support law X because of the Bible". In reference to making a law in our country, there is no practical difference. The reasons why people made the law are irrelevent. The fact that the law was made is the significant part. BTW, most of the original laws of our country (in fact, the Constitution itself) was based largely on principles from the Bible. And if you'd like to argue about that, I'll kindly leave it alone. Reading the writings of the founding fathers themselves will make that plenty clear. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: In reference to making a law in our country, there is no practical difference. there is. and, i promise, this is the last time i'm going to say this: the first is a theocracy, the second is not. the first implies that you want the country to be governed by the Bible (Bible at the root of laws). the second implies that you support a law because it coincides with the Bible (Bible is coincidental to the laws). see the first ten words of the first amendment. John Fisher wrote: most of the original laws of our country (in fact, the Constitution itself) was based largely on principles from the Bible where does the Bible give you freedom of religion? where does it give you freedom of speech and assembly? where does the Bible address the powers of the judiciary and intellectual property rights? John Fisher wrote: Reading the writings of the founding fathers themselves will make that plenty clear. it makes it pretty clear that most of them were very afraid of mixing religion and government, and that many of the most important of them were Deists, not Christians. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Ian Darling wrote: I apologise, but I'm going to quibble your terminology here - "evolutionist" is a meaningless term when referring to specific scientific disciplines. So wouldn't it be the task of geologists to explain it's formation (and lets face it - geologists usually have little to do with biological evolution)? Well, the debate is over whether creationism or some form of evolutionism better explains the existence of said rock formation. So, whether you pick a biologist or a geologist, the evolutionary defense would presumably come from one who is also an evolutionist. Ian Darling wrote: One is the notion that a glacier was involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the other is that erosion due to a river was involved in the formation. Those arguments initially sound reasonable, and I have encountered them before. But, you provided a link that you want me to address. I won't have time until after work, so you can expect another post later. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Well, the debate is over whether creationism or some form of evolutionism better explains the existence of said rock formation. So, whether you pick a biologist or a geologist, the evolutionary defense would presumably come from one who is also an evolutionist. Ahh, this is a way of splitting the debate that hadn't occurred to me - for reasons that I hope become clear. Although I find hte notion confusing, because evolution to most scientists almost always refers purely to biology. Geology is not something I would associate with evolution. In order to understand what you mean, I am assuming here that Creationism is a union, covering universe creation, land/earth formation, abiogenesis, and the development of the life we have today. In that sense, I can understand why you refer to the opposing aspect (astrophysics, geology, and biology being the main three disciplines) as Evolutionist, because Evolution is arguably the most significant danger to Creationism - as it takes the key aspect of "created man in His image", and turns it on its head. So I think I understand what you mean, although it does smack of a certain fuzziness of thought :-D and a somewhat dubious lumping together of separate sciences. So I would prefer that "Evolutionist" was used purely for biologists whom subscribe to that theory, rather than attach it to the distinct and differing scientific disciplines of astrophysics and geology. John Fisher wrote: Those arguments initially sound reasonable, and I have encountered them before. But, you provided a link that you want me to address. I won't have time until after work, so you can expect another post later. That's fine - I probably won't get a chance to look at them until Saturday anyway.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell