Serious question related to ID...
-
Cool. It is good to have someone here that thinks the same way. :-D
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
There are several of us here. It is good to see someone as young as you fighting the good fight. (You're still wrong about evolution though) "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 20:24 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Kennewick is certainly interesting, but has only anatomical connections to European populations, not cultural ones.
Well, we may never know now because any investigation into what the skull represents is buried literally under thousands of tons of rock and political intrigue. Can't let science upset the political status quo.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Secularism is the philosophy that has been forced on people throughout the last several decades,
Christianity seeped into US government over the first 150 or so years of our existence because no one challeneged it. It was the "good old boy we're all Christians and we know it and no one will say anything" philosophy. Finally, there were enough secular people who got tired of their toes being stepped on and said enough which was followed by some significant court cases. (I know your feeling on the courts so don't bother shouting it again but that's what the Supreme Court is for) Also, the US is now becoming much more religiously pluralistic so the conservative Christians are feeling more and more threatened and feel they have to make their views law before it's too late. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, we may never know now because any investigation into what the skull represents is buried literally under thousands of tons of rock and political intrigue. Can't let science upset the political status quo.
Yeah, but that's one you can't blame the Christians for! ;P
Tim Craig wrote:
Christianity seeped into US government over the first 150 or so years of our existence because no one challeneged it. It was the "good old boy we're all Christians and we know it and no one will say anything" philosophy. Finally, there were enough secular people who got tired of their toes being stepped on and said enough which was followed by some significant court cases. (I know your feeling on the courts so don't bother shouting it again but that's what the Supreme Court is for) Also, the US is now becoming much more religiously pluralistic so the conservative Christians are feeling more and more threatened and feel they have to make their views law before it's too late.
I really didn't want to get into this, but that is pretty much the point where I completely change sides. I'm sure I am at least as well read on American history as anyone who hangs out on this forum, and I think your analysis couldn't be more absurd. The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity. There were no other people on earth at that time that could have established this country as it now exists. We owe virtually every aspect of our culture to the principles they established here. For nearly 200 years they were the best guardians of our freedoms and liberties that we have ever had. Secularism, on the other hand, has virtually destroyed those principles in a few short decades. BTW (and sorry for shouting) but that is not what the Supreme court is for (unless you just happen to disagree with every thing the country was established to achieve - which most secularists do) and "pluralism" is simply socialistic double speak to rationalize why the secularists must save the country from itself. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 20:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm.
How does it feel to be brain washed? Dont worry. As you grew older you will realise the older you get the less you know.
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm.
How does it feel to be brain washed? Dont worry. As you grew older you will realise the older you get the less you know.
Josh Gray wrote:
How does it feel to be brain washed?
You should know.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I know not many people agree with me
Just for the record, I am another that agrees with you. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
Cool. I guess I am not as alone here as I thought.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Josh Gray wrote:
How does it feel to be brain washed?
You should know.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, we may never know now because any investigation into what the skull represents is buried literally under thousands of tons of rock and political intrigue. Can't let science upset the political status quo.
Yeah, but that's one you can't blame the Christians for! ;P
Tim Craig wrote:
Christianity seeped into US government over the first 150 or so years of our existence because no one challeneged it. It was the "good old boy we're all Christians and we know it and no one will say anything" philosophy. Finally, there were enough secular people who got tired of their toes being stepped on and said enough which was followed by some significant court cases. (I know your feeling on the courts so don't bother shouting it again but that's what the Supreme Court is for) Also, the US is now becoming much more religiously pluralistic so the conservative Christians are feeling more and more threatened and feel they have to make their views law before it's too late.
I really didn't want to get into this, but that is pretty much the point where I completely change sides. I'm sure I am at least as well read on American history as anyone who hangs out on this forum, and I think your analysis couldn't be more absurd. The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity. There were no other people on earth at that time that could have established this country as it now exists. We owe virtually every aspect of our culture to the principles they established here. For nearly 200 years they were the best guardians of our freedoms and liberties that we have ever had. Secularism, on the other hand, has virtually destroyed those principles in a few short decades. BTW (and sorry for shouting) but that is not what the Supreme court is for (unless you just happen to disagree with every thing the country was established to achieve - which most secularists do) and "pluralism" is simply socialistic double speak to rationalize why the secularists must save the country from itself. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 20:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity.
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well. The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end? Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You should know.
Ill keep it at your level. I know you are but what am I?
Josh Gray wrote:
what am I?
A human being.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Josh Gray wrote:
what am I?
A human being.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Thanks, another line for my sig. Why do you liberals always personally attack people when you disagree with them?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Thanks, another line for my sig. Why do you liberals always personally attack people when you disagree with them?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Thanks, another line for my sig.
Im flattered.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Why do you liberals always personally attack people when you disagree with them?
Who said I am a liberal? What defines a liberal? Do you think the whole world fits into two categories?
-
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here. The space ship is leaving at 10 tonight, be there or be square. "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
Jack Squirrel wrote:
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here.
i wonder who has comeup with this theory,either by a believer or an aethist,if a believer then its old thing,if by an aethist then its intresting.. regardless of above,the theory actually promotes yet another religon MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here. The space ship is leaving at 10 tonight, be there or be square. "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
Jack Squirrel wrote:
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here.
form the above mentioned website For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah"). does the site owner not trying to say that Christianity is actually worshiping of several gods?is it not against the teachings of bible? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity.
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well. The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end? Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well.
Certainly not unique to Christianity or, in fact, religion in general.
Tim Craig wrote:
The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end?
Perhaps, but none of that results in the conclusion: "therefore secularism must be promoted by the state in order to control religion". Secularism is nothing more than another philosophical world view that should be competing openly with others, such as religion, with no help from government. Separation between church and state is as much about protecting religion from the state as protecting the state from religion. And if the government activiely promotes one philosophy, secularism, as a government sanctioned alternative to religion than it is every bit as much in violation of separation of church and state as if it were promoting a religion. The left worships the "nonestablishment clause" but completely ignores the "free exercise thereof" clause.
Tim Craig wrote:
Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views?
No, not as a religion. But certainly it does for the historic role it has played in American culture. The historic importantance of chrisitianity and protestantism should certainly be taught in school and the display of symbols and quotations associated with it should certainly be allowed at the very least - even on government property. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity.
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well. The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end? Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Most churches just seem to be an outlet for the preacher to try to control people. Most of them envision America turning into a theocracy, much like Iran, only with Christianity being the state religion. I am against most organized religion, though I am not an athiest. I hate their whole idea of "hell". They try to terrorize people with it. It is always "you are going to hell if you read that version of the bible", or "you better get saved or you are going to hell". Then, there are some of them that believe in the "rapture". The rapture is an idea that they have that any second, they could literally vanish and go to heaven, then everyone else would have no chance to ever get saved. I guess we all better get ready to burn with the devil in the lake of fire for eternity. :rolleyes: :zzz:
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Thanks, another line for my sig.
Im flattered.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Why do you liberals always personally attack people when you disagree with them?
Who said I am a liberal? What defines a liberal? Do you think the whole world fits into two categories?
Josh Gray wrote:
Who said I am a liberal? What defines a liberal? Do you think the whole world fits into two categories?
Ok, maybe I wrongly accused you. For you to say I am brainwashed, I assumed you diagreed with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. Oh come on, what's not to trust about this guy? :laugh: (I always love how every kooky cult leader implements some type of "The great one/alien/orb/etc has informed me that as your leader, I must sleep with 10 women a night" clause in their doctrine) I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. I like the theory that states we're some type of discarded alien experiment that went wrong. What a blow to the human ego that would be. The 8-Track Tape of spacekind. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy. I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average". We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up". "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
Jack Squirrel wrote:
We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up".
This could very very easily describe some scientific explanations.
Jack Squirrel wrote:
I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average".
Really? Wow! My science teachers must have only showed me all of science's mistakes, and very little of their true findings. Actually, you're right. Most of religion is based on lie after lie, but science is far from infallible. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Jack Squirrel wrote:
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here.
form the above mentioned website For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah"). does the site owner not trying to say that Christianity is actually worshiping of several gods?is it not against the teachings of bible? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God",
Actually, Elohim is the plural of god (note, god not capitalized here). The word god can mean 'divine', or 'divine-like'. Even Satan and the demons are called gods in the Bible. There are several places where Elohim is used to denote God and one or more angels (e.g God and Jesus). Also, in Hebrew a word can be made plural to denote greatness. The plural Elohim, depending on context, can denote the [true] God, also called God Almight or the Most High. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I saw the show you're referring to. It was low on real explanation and as you said and really didn't emphasize what was fact and what was speculation. I suppose part can be blamed on how much time they had to present the material, Well over 200,000 years of human development crammed into an hour. Another argument the film maker might use is that he wants to get people interested in the subject so they'll did deeper on their own and find more clarification, hence the drama. One thing I think would be important to the teaching of science is to teach just what the philosophy of science is and the methodology one employs to do science. Generally, observations are made or general experiments are done. With that data, speculation and hypothesis are used as to how those observations might be explained. Arguments go back and forth until a consensus is reached that a certain theory reasonably explains what is going on. However, more importantly, theories are never just accepted as holy and everyone puts big check mark beside it and moves on to greener pastures. Theories are always open to test and reevalution based on new evidence or even new insight. People think evoution theory stopped at Darwin and the current work going on to come up with a more complete and detailed theory mean Darwin was wrong. Of course, most of these people want to distort this to insert their own religiously biased view into the mix. The most telling reason that ID is NOT science is that it is not open to refinement. In fact, if it was applied to all areas of science, no progress would ever have been made. At the first tough part of the problem, ID would be introduced and that would be that. We can't understand this, therefore (a) god (wink, nod) did it and end of story. The second thing different about science in my opinion is that scientists are comfortable saying what they don't know. They'll say what is observable and what is hypothesis. They will spend the time and effort to try to find answers. While the ID people like to say, it's just a theory, they minimize what a real scientific theory embodies. As far as teaching anything about ID in science classes, it might be valuable as a prime example of what crackpot ideas charlatans try to foist off as science for their own gain.
I agree with you that ID is not science, but...
Tim Craig wrote:
However, more importantly, theories are never just accepted as holy and everyone puts big check mark beside it and moves on to greener pastures.
In my education I've found that they often teach science just like that (the big check mark, taken holy and such). In the real world it may not be like that, but the issue is what is being taught in the schools. For example, in elementary school we were taught that the electron orbits the nucleus of an atom. In high school, my teacher walked in singing "lie lie lie", to let us know that we were lied to (and an electron can really be found anywhere in a certain area of the atom, etc.) The same is often done when teaching evolution.
Tim Craig wrote:
The second thing different about science in my opinion is that scientists are comfortable saying what they don't know.
Not as true as you'd like to believe. There are often times when scientists are scoffed at by other scientists because they are questioning fast-held beliefs.
Tim Craig wrote:
They'll say what is observable and what is hypothesis.
This isn't really how the science books teach evolution. It's more like, "This is what happened." At least in my experience. Maybe instead of introducing intelligent design, whether or not anyone thinks ID is true, the school systems should reexamine how evolution is actually being taught in each school.
Tim Craig wrote:
While the ID people like to say, it's just a theory, they minimize what a real scientific theory embodies.
Perhaps they do (minimize it), but my whole point of this post is that (the reason they minimize it is) evolution, though a theory, is being taught too much like fact. Even the theory of gravity, in schools, is taught that we can observe this to happen, and it appears a force pulls objects down, etc., etc. But with evolution, they say these are the steps that it happened. Too often too much faith is put in evolution. And when you look at simply the mathematical impossibility of evolution, it takes just as much faith to believei n evolution as it does to believe in ID. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Ha! :laugh: Your original post could very easily discount the teaching of evolution, too. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!