NationStates Jolt Archive

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

We can't. Violent solutions breed martyrs and nothing else seems to work.

Don't. They may have valid concerns about Evolutionism. So do we need to save the world from Creationists or the Evoultionists? Wich is the outdated, unlikely theory, Science cannot disprove the existance of a God and never will be ableso can we rule the Creation theory out?

We can't. Violent solutions breed martyrs and nothing else seems to work.
Read 1984.
That might work. Don't let them be martyrs, convert with Room 101 then kill them.

Personally, I would like an explaination for the appalling standards of spelling and grammar in the world today. I care far more about that than a pair of dumb biological theories.

Saving the world from creationism basically amounts to taking children away from their parents and teaching them through government-funded and regulated boarding schools. There really is no other means except waiting until religions change their views to adapt better to the modern world and the science we know today. I would recommend you simply do that, wait until creationism effectively dies out due to changes in religion.

I don't by any means think that Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. The fact is in most of the industrial countries creationism is a non-issue. For the US in particular,at worst we will have a duel mentality where one thing is taught in the high school and another in the colleges. Thus we will have a strong science core in support of evolution doing research and advancing science and a loud creationist group banging stuff making as much noise as possible teaching kids their version of what happened. So in short, no change the status quo. If it gets taken a step forward with outlawing of evolution, the US will see a HUGE "brain drain" as most of the scientists will pick up and leave. This will mark the end of the US as a world power and we will probably become a non-issue.

Read 1984.
That might work. Don't let them be martyrs, convert with Room 101 then kill them.


agreed,

I don't by any means think that Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. The fact is in most of the industrial countries creationism is a non-issue. For the US in particular,at worst we will have a duel mentality where one thing is taught in the high school and another in the colleges. Thus we will have a strong science core in support of evolution doing research and advancing science and a loud creationist group banging stuff making as much noise as possible teaching kids their version of what happened. So in short, no change the status quo. If it gets taken a step forward with outlawing of evolution, the US will see a HUGE "brain drain" as most of the scientists will pick up and leave. This will mark the end of the US as a world power and we will probably become a non-issue.

There will no doubt be massive outcry, but I do not think brain drain will be a real consequence, since the US would still offer far better living standards for intellectuals and upper classes than most other nations, and while they may denounce it, much of the engineering and medical community will not be overly affected by such a measure, although professors and researchers probably will.

There is no possible way I could see even our current government doing something so blatantly stupid, though.

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?
1. better education.
2. get the church/religion out of popular culture, public life, and politics

it works in britain :cool:

<snip>
If it gets taken a step forward with outlawing of evolution, the US will see a HUGE "brain drain" as most of the scientists will pick up and leave. This will mark the end of the US as a world power and we will probably become a non-issue.
Yes I can see it now:
"Audrey, for years I have been an Astrophysicist and I have focused my life on the stars. Yet, I am also a Scientist, and I cannot stay in a nation that denies my obviously inherent obvsession with Evolution. Now I must go, abandoning a job and home in which I have lived for years, and start a new life in . . . Zimbabwe!"
"Aren't you stereotypical enough? What with your lab coats and matching hats?"
"No! Only by obsessing with objects outside of my field that will have minimal influence on me can I truly be one with my scientist brethren and sisthren and androgthren and hermaphrodithren!"
"If you go, where shall I go? What shall I do?
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Don't. They may have valid concerns about Evolutionism. So do we need to save the world from Creationists or the Evoultionists? Wich is the outdated, unlikely theory, Science cannot disprove the existance of a God and never will be ableso can we rule the Creation theory out?

Agreed and seconded.

There will no doubt be massive outcry, but I do not think brain drain will be a real consequence, since the US would still offer far better living standards for intellectuals and upper classes than most other nations, and while they may denounce it, much of the engineering and medical community will not be overly affected by such a measure, although professors and researchers probably will.

There is no possible way I could see even our current government doing something so blatantly stupid, though.

Better living standards for scientists than countries like Britian, Japan and Germany? I'm not saying they'll move to somewhere like Peru or even Hungary, but I think they would move.

Yes I can see it now:
"Audrey, for years I have been an Astrophysicist and I have focused my life on the stars. Yet, I am also a Scientist, and I cannot stay in a nation that denies my obviously inherent obvsession with Evolution. Now I must go, abandoning a job and home in which I have lived for years, and start a new life in . . . Zimbabwe!"
"Aren't you stereotypical enough? What with your lab coats and matching hats?"
"No! Only by obsessing with objects outside of my field that will have minimal influence on me can I truly be one with my scientist brethren and sisthren and androgthren and hermaphrodithren!"
"If you go, where shall I go? What shall I do?
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

1) If evolution was outlawed, don't you think that would be a sign to the cosmologists? I know I would expect the big bang and stellar formation to be next on the list.
2) I'm not saying Zimbabwe, I'm saying countries like Germany, Japan, etc would look awfully good.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451156

1) If evolution was outlawed, don't you think that would be a sign to the cosmologists? I know I would expect the big bang and stellar formation to be next on the list.
No, I'm pretty sure that uprooting your whole life and going somewhere else on the hope that you might be able to land a similar position isn't something that you would do in reaction to something that doesn't affect you.
2) I'm not saying Zimbabwe, I'm saying countries like Germany, Japan, etc would look awfully good.
Now, I am not an econologist, but I am rather sure that a country can only maintain but so many scientists. That means that a sudden glut would result in overseas science positions becoming completely unavailable.
Now the most talented and well known ones wouldn't worry, but the majority of them would have a minimal chance of gianing a position anywhere, Zimbabwe or Germany.

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

The solution is simple. Make it law that those who reject science must also forgo the benefits thereof.

Unless they try to force their opinions on others they are quite entitled to their opinions. As long as they are willing to let science go its own way, there is no reason to make them change their views.

Unless they try to force their opinions on others they are quite entitled to their opinions. As long as they are willing to let science go its own way, there is no reason to make them change their views.

But, how does that deal with the issue of 'Creationism' (or it's pet, Intelligent Design) being forced on our youth as though it were 'science'?

But, how does that deal with the issue of 'Creationism' (or it's pet, Intelligent Design) being forced on our youth as though it were 'science'?
There's a lot of talk about 'forcing' religion on people. Just where is that happening? Sometimes I'm not the most observant guy in the world, but you think everyone would notice if it was the widespread problem that some of you make it out to be.

There's a lot of talk about 'forcing' religion on people. Just where is that happening? Sometimes I'm not the most observant guy in the world, but you think everyone would notice if it was the widespread problem that some of you make it out to be.
Been ignoring the news lately? ID is attempting to insinuate itself into the schools.

Been ignoring the news lately? ID is attempting to insinuate itself into the schools.
Actually, yes. Not on purpose, but I've been on the road and haven't been paying too much attention.

Okay, we have some silly school districts in Alabamastan and in Georgia that put evolution disclaimer stickers on text books. That doesn't qualify as 'forcing' religion onto anyone. What particular incidents are you worried about?

Read 1984.
That might work. Don't let them be martyrs, convert with Room 101 then kill them.

Liberals are so tolerant. I wish someone could teach me to be that tolerant.

Read 1984.
That might work. Don't let them be martyrs, convert with Room 101 then kill them.
The true Christian does not return evil for evil, but rather good for evil.

I, on the other hand, have no such constraints. Try to hurt any group in my Country simply because you don't believe as they do, and I will bring smoke on your ass. And there are lots, lots more just like me. ( smile )

We must destroy the world if we wish to save it. It's the only way.

We must destroy the world if we wish to save it. It's the only way.
I never had you pegged for a Bush supporter.

We should continue to fight to keep creationism out of science class since it isn't science. But we shouldn't be in the position of legislating people's beliefs. You can't force someone to believe something. As long as there is a large fraction of society who continue to accept science then there is no reason to fear sliding into a new dark age.

I find it scary that people get so violently worked up about something so silly. Why are you so concerned about what others believe? If someone believes that the earth is flat, or that the moon landing never occured I find it kind of ammusing and might feel sorry for them. I don't get angry. Yes, its anoying some people want to teach creationism in science, but not all creationists want to do this.

I ask you all. What's more dangerous. A large group of people full of hatred that wish harm on a major portion of society or a group of people who reject science on one particular issue?

What I find most anoying about all this ID vs evolution debate is the vast ignorance on both sides. A lot of you are hypocrits (not directing this at anyone in particular). How many of you actually understand the science behind evolution? I've been in these debates before and a large majority of those on the pro-evolution side are just as ignorant as those on the pro-creation side. Most pro-evolutionists don't seem to understand the science and just blindly support it, while most pro-creationists don't bother to read the Bible and understand it so are just blindly supporting it. Blind belief is stupid regardless if you happened to have picked the right side to believe in.

Personally I think we're back footing this one. People will always believe what they want to. I'm sure there are people out there somewhere who believe the earth is flat. The trick is to make sure our laws and school remember that the earth is spherical.

I used to roll my eyes when I saw stuff like this. Oh God! Religious people are taking over the world! We are d00m3d!

Then I fell upon this

http://www.objectiveministries.org/kidz/

And I cried.

I am a pretty devout Christian. I am pissed off at the Episcopalian Church for that Gay Bishop fiasco. However, this stuff makes me sick.

Parthini']I used to roll my eyes when I saw stuff like this. Oh God! Religious people are taking over the world! We are d00m3d!

Then I fell upon this

http://www.objectiveministries.org/kidz/

And I cried.

I am a pretty devout Christian. I am pissed off at the Episcopalian Church for that Gay Bishop fiasco. However, this stuff makes me sick.
That's a satire site. It's run by the same folks that run Landover Baptist. (Which makes their 'crusade' against Landover all the more amusing to those in the know.)

Of course, that shit's tame to the serious stuff on the Internet.

There's a lot of talk about 'forcing' religion on people. Just where is that happening? Sometimes I'm not the most observant guy in the world, but you think everyone would notice if it was the widespread problem that some of you make it out to be.

The current contention is to make Intelligent Design part of science curriculums... despite not being science. It's being brought to a head, by arguments over stickering and the like... but the current is there to wedge Christianity (in one guise or another) into the science room.

But how are we going to protect the sanctity of science above all else?

That's a satire site. It's run by the same folks that run Landover Baptist. (Which makes their 'crusade' against Landover all the more amusing to those in the know.)

Of course, that shit's tame to the serious stuff on the Internet.

Ya know, I thought it was real. Then I thought it was fake. Then I thought it was real. I don't know, these satires are getting pretty damned good. 'specially if they have a Roy Moore for Pres link on their front page. I don't know what to think now. But taht lamb's 'whooo' freaks me the fuck out. Gawd!! I hope it's fake . . . .

EDIT: Ok, yeah, it's fake. Smell the weavel . . . .

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?
disprove God............ oh right you can't :p

plan B- leave them alone.............

oh wait that wouldn't be fun...........


oh okay, let's all start spam threds about how to deal with the problem of people who don't think exactly like we do..................

yeah, that is productive.

None of the above ... I am all for a general theology/philosophy course where the topic MAY cover creation stories

But it absolutely does NOT belong in a science class

disprove God............ oh right you can't :p

I can, provided people agree on a definition of God. But people would just twist my words to make it seem like I hadn't proved it. It would be either that or agree with me, but no-one would be willing to let go of their belief over a little thing like logic.

I can, provided people agree on a definition of God. But people would just twist my words to make it seem like I hadn't proved it. It would be either that or agree with me, but no-one would be willing to let go of their belief over a little thing like logic.
you can't. just like I can't prove that there is a God.
it is a pointless debate. God btw isn't bound by human logic, so using logic to "disprove" God even though it makes sense to you, really wouldn't work.

you can't. just like I can't prove that there is a God.
it is a pointless debate. God btw isn't bound by human logic, so using logic to "disprove" God even though it makes sense to you, really wouldn't work.

The statement that something "isn't bound by human logic" doesn't really mean anything. It's just something that people say to ignore rational thought. It's a cop out. I wouldn't mind if you said that my reasoning is flawed, but avoiding an argument by saying that all arguments that support my position are automatically wrong makes it very difficult for me to respect your position.

The statement that something "isn't bound by human logic" doesn't really mean anything. It's just something that people say to ignore rational thought. It's a cop out. I wouldn't mind if you said that my reasoning is flawed, but avoiding an argument by saying that all arguments that support my position are automatically wrong makes it very difficult for me to respect your position.
Okay, I will play along, explain to me logically how there is no God. I promise to pay attention and take your arguements at face value and try not to let my own veiws make me biased against them.

Okay, I will play along, explain to me logically how there is no God. I promise to pay attention and take your arguements at face value and try not to let my own veiws make me biased against them.

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?
creationists aren't the ones doing the superstition, superstitions are remaints from the previous animist religions that used to be worshipped all over the world. for example, the common thing in england, i think, is that you aren't supposed to walk under a ladder, this is because in the old animist religion, spirits used to live under "A" shaped places, and if you walked under one you would push the spirit out and make it mad at you. and THAT makes much more logical sense than anything creationist would.

so don't insult the animist religions(however outdated they might be) by tying them in with the creationists.

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).

thank you for your assumption. I had to read it twice as is. (but mostly because of meds I am on that make my head fuzzy)

My counter arguement would most likely be veiwed as a cop out. So here goes with my alternate counter arguement, God is paradoxical. (okay not the greatest arguement I assure you, but maybe tomorrow when my head isn't so fuzzy I will come up with a better alternate counter arguement)

thank you for your assumption. I had to read it twice as is. (but mostly because of meds I am on that make my head fuzzy)

My counter arguement would most likely be veiwed as a cop out. So here goes with my alternate counter arguement, God is paradoxical. (okay not the greatest arguement I assure you, but maybe tomorrow when my head isn't so fuzzy I will come up with a better alternate counter arguement)

A poor attempt at rebuttal was expected, but I appreciate you keeping it short.

A poor attempt at rebuttal was expected, but I appreciate you keeping it short.
yeah it was a pretty poor attempt. I am going to have to wait until my brain is back up to speed before I respond intelligently because right now it wouldn't make any sense anyway.;)

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).

I'm not the only person to have figured this out? WTF?

Copyright infringement!:eek:

But seriously, though I myself used something very like this for a while, I've figured out two problems with it.

First, God is also described as omnibenevolent. If the definition of benevolence is something God has power over, this means nothing. If, on the other hand, there's a secular moral code that God has no control over, it could stop God from getting what he wants.

Second, the proof requires that God be a rational being with free will. If God is not a rational actor but instead a mechanical, programmed one, the proof falls flat.

Both of these exceptions require conditions that most Christians would be fain to accept, but I could see very reasonable cults founded on either.

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).

Sorry, my friend... but your 'proof' is based on a logical fallacy. You have created a Strawman argument... i.e. YOU have decided that God wants everyone to believe in him. This is not scriptural, nor logical... so I wonder why you picked it?

You have compounded your error by failing to spot the fallacy. You have continued with your 'proof' based on a flawed assumption... which means, of course, that any 'proof' you manage will ALSO be flawed.

Your third big problem here, is that you fail to point out all the alternatives, even WITHIN your Strawman argument. You say there are non-believers because:

1) God doesn't want everyone to believe him, or
2) God cannot make everyone believe him.

You miss the third option:

3) God WANTS us to believe him, but will not FORCE us to...

or, even

4) God wants 'pure' belief... i.e. belief unsullied by evidence... under such a circumstance, 'god' is only going to gain the belief of those who have faith, not those who rely on logic.

The other problem I see, is that you somehow think one contradiction (if it even IS one) would be enough to 'undo' an entity.

Obviously... this is flawed, also. One could claim that all humans have two hands, for example. When someone comes along with one hand... does that person become less than human - just because they 'contradict' our basic idea?

And - if that person IS 'less than human' (logically speaking), due to that 'failing'... does that mean that ALL of the other humans are now logical contradictions?

That is what you are trying to do with 'god'.

You have invented a fallacy, failed to prove that fallacy, then invented a mechanism whereby that flawed proof 'proves' the contradiction implicit in 'god'. Then you have claimed that such a contradiction (or ANY contradiction) somehow negates the reality of such an entity.... but STILL based on your definitions.

4) God wants 'pure' belief... i.e. belief unsullied by evidence... under such a circumstance, 'god' is only going to gain the belief of those who have faith, not those who rely on logic.

and this is where a big part of the crowd begins walking off.

No, I'm pretty sure that uprooting your whole life and going somewhere else on the hope that you might be able to land a similar position isn't something that you would do in reaction to something that doesn't affect you.
It shows the climate and respect for the tenant for your field are viewed and accepted. It says that the method by which you have dedicated your life is not respected. It bodes ill for all who are scientists because it sets a trend.

Now, I am not an econologist, but I am rather sure that a country can only maintain but so many scientists. That means that a sudden glut would result in overseas science positions becoming completely unavailable.
Now the most talented and well known ones wouldn't worry, but the majority of them would have a minimal chance of gianing a position anywhere, Zimbabwe or Germany.
How did that work for Germany in the 30s and 40s?

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

You know, sometimes I wish that creationism was proven to be correct so that idiots like you will be seen for wht they are: idiots.

If someone believes in creationism, let them. It doesn't bother me.

You know, sometimes I wish that creationism was proven to be correct so that idiots like you will be seen for wht they are: idiots.

If someone believes in creationism, let them. It doesn't bother me.

If that happened, half the posters here would collectively put their foot in mouth.

disprove God............ oh right you can't :p

plan B- leave them alone.............

oh wait that wouldn't be fun...........


oh okay, let's all start spam threds about how to deal with the problem of people who don't think exactly like we do..................

yeah, that is productive.

Actually, this is quite instructive . . .

Actually, this is quite instructive . . .
please elaborate.

Simple. Keep ID out of classrooms. If you want to teach about religions in a "Study of World Religions" class or something, go for it. Other than that, religion should be kept out of school, in particular science classes. Even though I'm a Creationist, I don't think anyone should try to forcibly convert anyone or force anything down their throat. God belongs in churches, not schools. If people want to embrace Christianity, they must do so with their own heart, not because someone else told them to.

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).


Actually, there is a loop hole in your arguement. It is simple, really. Since God can not reveal himself to people without killing the person, he has to rely on others to convert people for him. And since humans are not perfect, he won't get everyone to believe in him.

As you stated so eloquently, a contradiction can not exist. So, in order to prevent the contradiction, God uses his omnipotence to destroy the non-believers. In this way everyone believes in him, he gets what he wants, and the logic is satisfied.

Alright, I think I messed that up in there, so if you can point it out, I will appreciate it.

Actually, there is a loop hole in your arguement. It is simple, really. Since God can not reveal himself to people without killing the person, he has to rely on others to convert people for him. And since humans are not perfect, he won't get everyone to believe in him.

As you stated so eloquently, a contradiction can not exist. So, in order to prevent the contradiction, God uses his omnipotence to destroy the non-believers. In this way everyone believes in him, he gets what he wants, and the logic is satisfied.

Alright, I think I messed that up in there, so if you can point it out, I will appreciate it.
There is a loop hole in your rebuttal.

If God is omnipotent, he has the power to appear to someone without killing him/her. He doesn't have to rely on other to do his work. He's omnipotent after all.

And he has done so. But I was referring to his true form, which, as he is theorized to be an 11th dimension creature, he can not do. He may be omnipotent, but humans are still fragile creatures.

And he has done so. But I was referring to his true form, which, as he is theorized to be an 11th dimension creature, he can not do. He may be omnipotent, but humans are still fragile creatures.
You don't get it. He is omnipotent. He can find a way for his true form not to kill mortals. He can decide on the spot that his true form is now that of a 6 month old kitten with pink fur. There is nothing an omnipotent being cannot do.

So when you say that god is omnipotent but that he cannot appears to human in his true form, you are basically lying in one of two ways:

1 - God is not omnipotent.
2 - He simply do not want to have humans survive the sight of his true form. Not, like you say, that he cannot.

You don't get it. He is omnipotent. He can find a way for his true form not to kill mortals. He can decide on the spot that his true form is now that of a 6 month old kitten with pink fur. There is nothing an omnipotent being cannot do.

So when you say that god is omnipotent but that he cannot appears to human in his true form, you are basically lying in one of two ways:

1 - God is not omnipotent.
2 - He simply do not want to have humans survive the sight of his true form. Not, like you say, that he cannot.


Alright. How would a one dimensional creature see us?

Alright. How would a one dimensional creature see us?
Ah but we're not omnipotent, now are we?

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?
America should have taken religion away from public life (esp. from politics) a long long time ago, like most european countries did. Evolution vs creation is not an issue this side of the Atlantic. But you guys still have creationism at school. What's next? Geocentrism at school? Flat Earth?

Come on, this is the 21st century. America should be more reality-based.

America should have taken religion away from public life (esp. from politics) a long long time ago, like most european countries did. Evolution vs creation is not an issue this side of the Atlantic.
what counts as public life?

America should have taken religion away from public life (esp. from politics) a long long time ago, like most european countries did. Evolution vs creation is not an issue this side of the Atlantic. But you guys still have creationism at school. What's next? Geocentrism at school? Flat Earth?

Come on, this is the 21st century. America should be more reality-based.

I guess that explains those Christian crosses I saw in classrooms in public schools in Baden-Wurttemburg.

We don't have crosses in public schools in the US. Nor, as you seem to believe, do we have creationism taught in a widespread manner in our public schools.

Unlike European countries, we do not have a strong central government. It is up to states, and in some cases, local counties - as to what they want to put in their schoolbooks.

So when you hear about debates on the subject of putting creationism in textbooks in the US - be sure to know that they are not talking about the whole country - they are talking about one jurisdiction (or one state, like Kansas).

what counts as public life?
In this case, it's the courts, the politics, the lawmaking, the education system, etc. I'm all for religious freedom, but religious interference in these matters is potentially dangerous.

America should have taken religion away from public life (esp. from politics) a long long time ago, like most european countries did. Evolution vs creation is not an issue this side of the Atlantic. But you guys still have creationism at school. What's next? Geocentrism at school? Flat Earth?

Come on, this is the 21st century. America should be more reality-based.

SCOTUS ruled that creationism is not allowed to be taught in school, so, no, we don't have creationism at school.

And reality does emcompass more than the visible measurable world.

How much does hate weigh? What color is beauty? What is the speed of gossip? And what do my dreams smell like? How many inane thoughts have run through my head while writing this?

In this case, it's the courts, the politics, the lawmaking, the education system, etc. I'm all for religious freedom, but religious interference in these matters is potentially dangerous.
it is seperate (pretty much) I mean it is in extreme cases where the two ever meet and it is pretty much shut down immediatly

Why can't we just respect each other's opinion and views, and not kill anyone?

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).
Okay, so you redefined God so you could so you could disprove him. Um, that's called a strawman.

Let's properly assign a Christian assumption of God's desires. God gave us free will. This means that he can make us believe and worship him, but decided that we would be given the free will instead. Thus it's not a flaw in his abilities, he decided to allow us a choice. God's desire is for us to choose to be with Him, to choose Him.

Now, I know what argument follows. "Couldn't we have free will and he still have all of us believe and be saved? He is all-powerful, isn't he?" That's like asking can't you be free and still be in a cage? Arguing against all powerful but exposing a flaw in our lines of logic is silly. It Doesn't expose the limitations of God but the limitations of human logic. It's kind of like saying can God create a rock that even he couldn't lift, it's a twisting of logic that certainly wouldn't accepted by anyone reasonably responsible in terms of debate.

The alternate argument is "why would God put us in a postion that allows us to fail?" I actually don't believe the whole hell argument, but I'll argue from the standard viewpoint anyway. The answer is life. Yes, the penalty seems harsh, but the alternative is to not have life as we know it. You may think it's harsh, but I am thankful for my access to life. If atheists actually believed life wasn't worth it, then why aren't they dying off by the thousands? Most Christians think you are damned for suicide so even if they think it's not worth it, it deters suicide, but what deters the suicide of an atheist if not life?

You contrived (rather than reached) a logical contradiction and claimed it amounts to disproof. Let's just say your argument wasn't uber awesome.

I guess that explains those Christian crosses I saw in classrooms in public schools in Baden-Wurttemburg.
I said most countries. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that religion is much more influential in the US (one nation under God, remember?) than in Baden-Württemberg.

We don't have crosses in public schools in the US. Nor, as you seem to believe, do we have creationism taught in a widespread manner in our public schools.

Unlike European countries, we do not have a strong central government. It is up to states, and in some cases, local counties - as to what they want to put in their schoolbooks.

So when you hear about debates on the subject of putting creationism in textbooks in the US - be sure to know that they are not talking about the whole country - they are talking about one jurisdiction (or one state, like Kansas).
But you still have some public schools where creationism is thaught. That denies choice for the people who live on that school's area. This doesn't happen in European countries without a strong central government (e.g. Switzerland, Germany,...).

Sorry, my friend... but your 'proof' is based on a logical fallacy. You have created a Strawman argument... i.e. YOU have decided that God wants everyone to believe in him. This is not scriptural, nor logical... so I wonder why you picked it?

You have compounded your error by failing to spot the fallacy. You have continued with your 'proof' based on a flawed assumption... which means, of course, that any 'proof' you manage will ALSO be flawed.

Your third big problem here, is that you fail to point out all the alternatives, even WITHIN your Strawman argument. You say there are non-believers because:

1) God doesn't want everyone to believe him, or
2) God cannot make everyone believe him.

You miss the third option:

3) God WANTS us to believe him, but will not FORCE us to...

or, even

4) God wants 'pure' belief... i.e. belief unsullied by evidence... under such a circumstance, 'god' is only going to gain the belief of those who have faith, not those who rely on logic.

The other problem I see, is that you somehow think one contradiction (if it even IS one) would be enough to 'undo' an entity.

Obviously... this is flawed, also. One could claim that all humans have two hands, for example. When someone comes along with one hand... does that person become less than human - just because they 'contradict' our basic idea?

And - if that person IS 'less than human' (logically speaking), due to that 'failing'... does that mean that ALL of the other humans are now logical contradictions?

That is what you are trying to do with 'god'.

You have invented a fallacy, failed to prove that fallacy, then invented a mechanism whereby that flawed proof 'proves' the contradiction implicit in 'god'. Then you have claimed that such a contradiction (or ANY contradiction) somehow negates the reality of such an entity.... but STILL based on your definitions.

Ha. GnI, good to see you. Had I read this first, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. It's interesting how we always approach this posters from different angles but come to the same conclusion. I pointed out the strawman and the flawed assumption as well. I think your post was clearer though. I hate it when you're more elegant than me. Stop it.

But you still have some public schools where creationism is thaught. That denies choice for the people who live on that school's area. This doesn't happen in European countries without a strong central government (e.g. Switzerland, Germany,...).
In public schools where creationism is taught it is alongside evolution, or rather isn't taught at all, just eluded to.

a few private schools where they actually teach creationism only, and the parents choose to send the children there. so how is that denying choice?
sure you could say that the kids have a "right" not to learn it, but I am sure that I make my kids learn a whole lot of things they don't want to (like how to clean up after themselves, how to speak properly, and manners)

Ha. GnI, good to see you. Had I read this first, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. It's interesting how we always approach this posters from different angles but come to the same conclusion. I pointed out the strawman and the flawed assumption as well. I think your post was clearer though. I hate it when you're more elegant than me. Stop it.
I would like to thank both of you! :) My mind was trying to think of how to put it last night, but meds prevented clear thought. :(

I can always count on Jocabia to explain things much better than I could have anyway so why even bother posting? I think I still do because I know it annoys a select few to read what I have to say............

SCOTUS ruled that creationism is not allowed to be taught in school, so, no, we don't have creationism at school.

And reality does emcompass more than the visible measurable world.

How much does hate weigh? What color is beauty? What is the speed of gossip? And what do my dreams smell like? How many inane thoughts have run through my head while writing this?
All the concepts you mentioned above can be analysed in a qualitative way. You made a mistake: you tried to analyse them quantitatively, so you didn't succeed at it. You are just supporting my point that America isn't reality-based enough.

I would like to thank both of you! :) My mind was trying to think of how to put it last night, but meds prevented clear thought. :(

I can always count on Jocabia to explain things much better than I could have anyway so why even bother posting? I think I still do because I know it annoys a select few to read what I have to say............

It was difficult to reply to because he set it up to fool you. If one wants to hide something from most people, the easiest way is to place where they are not expecting it. Like a magician, he tried to convince you the logic was hidden and then he placed the flaws in plain sight. Then to make sure you would second guess yourself, he suggested that if you see a flaw in the logic it is because you don't understand logic itself. For the record, this is nearly always a sign of a weak argument. "If you don't agree with my argument, even though my argument has no evidence, then it's because you're just too dumb to understand it." This is the argument of people who think science or logic and prover or disprove God. The arguments that derive from such thinking surround ID, abortion, euthanasia, religious freedom, gay marriage, etc. My suggestion is to dismiss anyone who suggests you're not bright enough to understand their argument. 99% of the time you'll find that you've dismissed someone who knows nothing of which they speak.

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

God will smote them. :D

God will smote them. :D

You know, that's a good point. There is not enough smiting going on. I haven't been to a good smiting in such a long time.

LG, I smite thee!

In public schools where creationism is taught it is alongside evolution, or rather isn't taught at all, just eluded to.

a few private schools where they actually teach creationism only, and the parents choose to send the children there. so how is that denying choice?
sure you could say that the kids have a "right" not to learn it, but I am sure that I make my kids learn a whole lot of things they don't want to (like how to clean up after themselves, how to speak properly, and manners)
Actually I think it's the parents and the state who have the right to choose what the kids learn. I said the parents and the state because most parents can't afford to choose. So if anyone wants to send their kids to some religious private school, I couldn't care less. It's their choice. Just don't put creationism in public schools because that's just wrong.

You know, that's a good point. There is not enough smiting going on. I haven't been to a good smiting in such a long time.

LG, I smite thee!

*is smitten* Ow!

*is smitten* Ow!

Now, if I could just find someone to be smitten with me during happy hour. Wish me luck.

Actually I think it's the parents and the state who have the right to choose what the kids learn. I said the parents and the state because most parents can't afford to choose. So if anyone wants to send their kids to some religious private school, I couldn't care less. It's their choice. Just don't put creationism in public schools because that's just wrong.
I don't think it is the state's right to choose what my kids learn nor is it thier responsibility to educate them (but that is a whole different thred altogether)

in response to your post though, if the parents and the state decide to teach creationism then I suppose they should, I don't really see it happening in a place where the majority is against it though, that is the beauty of living in America, if enough people make enough noise things can changel. Voting is free, and so it protest, petition, and plain yelling on the school board lawn.

I don't think it is the state's right to choose what my kids learn nor is it thier responsibility to educate them (but that is a whole different thred altogether)
You say that because you can afford to choose. When you don't have the money to choose, you still have your vote, so it's the state also has the right to choose, since most people can't.

in response to your post though, if the parents and the state decide to teach creationism then I suppose they should, I don't really see it happening in a place where the majority is against it though, that is the beauty of living in America, if enough people make enough noise things can changel. Voting is free, and so it protest, petition, and plain yelling on the school board lawn.
I agree. The best thing about a democracy is that people can actually change things. But I'd be rather surprised if any european country voted for creationism. For some reason, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened in a US state ;)

You say that because you can afford to choose ;)
you are assuming facts not in evidence. everyone has a right to choose, some people have to fight harder and longer, but everyone in the end has the right to choose, it doesn't matter how much money someone has, I have more money now than I did when I was growing up, but I have been in poverty and even then I had the right to choose, and still the responsibility to exercise that right.

If people want to teach creationism in schools, let them. After you get done teaching them creationism, teach them the giant spaghetti monster theory and compare the two for validity. Finally, once everyone is done wrestling with both of those, teach evolution.

you are assuming facts not in evidence. everyone has a right to choose, some people have to fight harder and longer, but everyone in the end has the right to choose, it doesn't matter how much money someone has, I have more money now than I did when I was growing up, but I have been in poverty and even then I had the right to choose, and still the responsibility to exercise that right.
Despite being poor you still could choose. I'm happy for you. But what if you couldn't afford it? Well let me tell you that here in Portugal, if you're poor you will go to a public school. With no right to choose. Heck, I'm middle class (by portuguese standards) and my parents could never afford to put me in a private school. For people like us (I don't know about the US, but we're a majority here) public school is the only choice. When we vote, we expect that our vote has a consequence on our state-provided education. It's the only time when we can choose.

So if you were able to choose private, I'm happy for you :) . But not everyone is so lucky, so you can't deny that the state has an important role in providing education.

Education is the key to the success of a nation. Although religio is deeply imbedded in society, creationism is not a science. Preventing creationism from being thought would be in the best interests of the nation. If the citizens have a particular bias towards creationism, then that may pursue their interests on their own time.

1. better education.
2. get the church/religion out of popular culture, public life, and politics

it works in britain :cool:

And yet, Britain has a state religion whereas the United States does not. :rolleyes:

But, how does that deal with the issue of 'Creationism' (or it's pet, Intelligent Design) being forced on our youth as though it were 'science'?

What about the issue of darwinism being forced on our youth?

But how are we going to protect the sanctity of science above all else?

The laws of science are still the same. Theories though, are a different matter entirely. No one can prove that there is or isn't a God.

If that happened, half the posters here would collectively put their foot in mouth.

They should have them there now. There has been more proof for Intelligent Design than anything else.

SCOTUS ruled that creationism is not allowed to be taught in school, so, no, we don't have creationism at school.

And this could be a violation of the United States 1st Amendment protecting religion. But I'm not going to go off on a Supreme Court rant this early in the morning :D

What about the issue of darwinism being forced on our youth?
I would say in this case, use of the word "forced" constitutes predjudicial language. It would be like asking "What about the issue of Christian tyranny being forced upon our youth?"

It's not cricket.

I would say in this case, use of the word "forced" constitutes predjudicial language. It would be like asking "What about the issue of Christian tyranny being forced upon our youth?"

It's not cricket.

No one is forcing anything. Everyone who says that creationism is being forced is lying through their goddamn teeth. It is so obvious to anyone with a brain but then, I don't expect the liberals nor the ACLU to figure that one out.

Its actually quite easy. Find out what schools are huge creationalist advocates or teach it, then lessen the children's prospect for better jobs from those fringe schools because of the fact that they probably are more at risk of lacking a proper education.

I'm not saying the kid's can't work at walmart as bag boys and cashiers. Just don't hire them for job's in science, teaching, and such.

No one is forcing anything. Everyone who says that creationism is being forced is lying through their goddamn teeth. It is so obvious to anyone with a brain but then, I don't expect the liberals nor the ACLU to figure that one out.
Ok, let's see if we can get this back to a discussion that is capable of producing value. One thing that should be considered when comparing the two ideas is what educational merit each has. I would like to think that the purpose of education is to develop a solid foundation for proceeding onto higher learning. Through learning about evolution, one develops the foundation necessary for studying biology and genetics.

Here's the question:
What higher learning has its foundations in creationism?

Ah but we're not omnipotent, now are we?

I might be... how do you check?

Do I have to pee on a stick, or something?

SCOTUS ruled that creationism is not allowed to be taught in school, so, no, we don't have creationism at school.

And reality does emcompass more than the visible measurable world.

How much does hate weigh? What color is beauty? What is the speed of gossip? And what do my dreams smell like? How many inane thoughts have run through my head while writing this?

Ah... and there lies the rub.

Do we teach dream-smelling in science class? Do we break out the spectrophotometer to quantify beauty in units of colour?

I'd be happy for my child to learn about 'how much hate weighs' at school... just NOT in the science classroom.

(Unless, of course, it was a first semester subject, as an introduction to what science CAN NOT do).

Ha. GnI, good to see you. Had I read this first, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. It's interesting how we always approach this posters from different angles but come to the same conclusion. I pointed out the strawman and the flawed assumption as well. I think your post was clearer though. I hate it when you're more elegant than me. Stop it.

Ha ha! I just bitched about the same thing, in reverse, in another thread. :D :D

Anyhoo... it's always worth seeing your replies... and, as you say, you usually manage to hit some different bases to me anyway, so it's all good. :)

I would like to thank both of you! :) My mind was trying to think of how to put it last night, but meds prevented clear thought. :(

I can always count on Jocabia to explain things much better than I could have anyway so why even bother posting? I think I still do because I know it annoys a select few to read what I have to say............

And because we appreciate your contributions. :)

Really, there is no such thing as TOO MUCH agreement.

What about the issue of darwinism being forced on our youth?

Oh please god, no...

Show me where 'Darwinism' has been forced onto our youth?

Darwin was a contributor (and a major one) to our current understanding of evolution, but he is FAR from being ALL there is to the matter.

All of a sudden I find myself thinking of the Scopes trial, and shaking my head...

No one is forcing anything. Everyone who says that creationism is being forced is lying through their goddamn teeth. It is so obvious to anyone with a brain but then, I don't expect the liberals nor the ACLU to figure that one out.

Intelligent Design is NOT science.

If Intelligent Design gets inserted into the science syllabus, DESPITE that... it IS being 'forced' in.

Nothing to do with 'lying', my friend.

Despite being poor you still could choose. I'm happy for you. But what if you couldn't afford it? Well let me tell you that here in Portugal, if you're poor you will go to a public school. With no right to choose. Heck, I'm middle class (by portuguese standards) and my parents could never afford to put me in a private school. For people like us (I don't know about the US, but we're a majority here) public school is the only choice. When we vote, we expect that our vote has a consequence on our state-provided education. It's the only time when we can choose.

So if you were able to choose private, I'm happy for you :) . But not everyone is so lucky, so you can't deny that the state has an important role in providing education.
I am sorry about things there, I was mostly speaking about the rights to choose here in America, I sometimes forget that things work differently in other countries and that poverty here (little food, no electricity, no heat) is rich in some countries where people don't even have a roof over thier head or access to clean water.
I can't really afford the private school in my area because it is $27,000 a year, and that is more than most people around here make in a year, they can't choose to send thier kids to private school either but they can do things to change thier public schools. When I was in highschool, I had to take government class and the only books we had were 15 books from 1978 and since it was 1996 and there were 40 kids in my class (240 in the whole school in the class that semester) we really needed good books. About 150 students skipped class one day and marched around yelling really loud and generally being a pain in front of the school board. It only took about 2 hours for the school board to come 'claim' that they couldn't afford new books and about 5 min after that was shot all over the TV a few local buisnesses offered to buy the books we needed. See? People with no money getting a better education for thier kids............. that was the kind of thing I was talking about, but maybe it only happens in America (I wouldn't doubt that it did)

What about the issue of darwinism being forced on our youth?
What about the issue of Newtonism being force on our youth? How can we sit by and allow our children to be brainwashed into believing in gravity?

Furthermore, how dare we exclude alchemy from their curriculem? And Michael Behe, a leading Creationist, has stated that astrology is every bit as much a science as Creationism, so why don't we include astrology alongside astronomy classes?

SCOTUS ruled that creationism is not allowed to be taught in school, so, no, we don't have creationism at school.
Interesting, seeing as how my younger brother recently finished a unit on creation myths (including the Christian one) in his American public school. Interesting that I had a similar class when I attended public school.


And reality does emcompass more than the visible measurable world.

Perhaps. Science, however, does not. Hence, creation myths have no place in science classrooms.


How much does hate weigh? What color is beauty? What is the speed of gossip? And what do my dreams smell like? How many inane thoughts have run through my head while writing this?
Misleading. Just because you cannot attribute a color to beauty does not mean it is necessarily unmeasurable...you cannot attribute a color to wind, but you certainly can measure it through other means. The speed of gossip is likewise measurable, as is the relative brain activity occuring in your cerebral cortex right now. Hate is measurable in terms of electrochemical activity in your brain as well.

Oh please god, no...

Show me where 'Darwinism' has been forced onto our youth?

Oh how about it is taught at every grade level as FACT whereas it isn't fact?

Darwin was a contributor (and a major one) to our current understanding of evolution, but he is FAR from being ALL there is to the matter.

He is the only one that counts.

All of a sudden I find myself thinking of the Scopes trial, and shaking my head...

That was a good movie.

Intelligent Design is NOT science.

If Intelligent Design gets inserted into the science syllabus, DESPITE that... it IS being 'forced' in.

Nothing to do with 'lying', my friend.

Might as well teach it. If your going to teach the theories, teach the important ones.

What about the issue of Newtonism being force on our youth? How can we sit by and allow our children to be brainwashed into believing in gravity?

Are we talking about Newton's LAWS of motion or the LAW of universal gravity?

Furthermore, how dare we exclude alchemy from their curriculem? And Michael Behe, a leading Creationist, has stated that astrology is every bit as much a science as Creationism, so why don't we include astrology alongside astronomy classes?

I'll support it. I won't sign up for those classes but I'll support it!

Oh how about it is taught at every grade level as FACT whereas it isn't fact?

If Darwin's specific writings are taught as fact in ANY curriculem then you should be angry, since science has shown that Darwin made several important mistakes (mainly due to the limitations of science in his time). Teaching scientifically disproven information in science class is not cool.


He is the only one that counts.

Spoken like a person with no understanding of science, evolutionary theory, or the process of advancement that has produced many of the greatest discoveries of this and the last century.


That was a good movie.
Glad you liked it, since it looks like they'll have more than enough material to make a modern-day sequel soon.

Are we talking about Newton's LAWS of motion or the LAW of universal gravity?


Laws are also "just" theories. It's only that they called it laws back then.

And also, please don't use the term "Darwinism" when you refer to the Theory of Evolution.

Give all court judges a sign saying I quote: STFU and make them hold the sign up every time the issue comes up on a trial.

I would enjoy it.

Trial:

Lobbyist: I demand they teach Intellegant Design!

*Judge holds up STFU sign.*

Lobbyist: What?

*Points to STFU sign*

Lobbyist: What is your name I'm writing you up!

*Points to STFU sign* *keeps pointing to STFU sign until Lobbyist leaves.*

Imagine what problems could be solved with the STFU sign.

Oh how about it is taught at every grade level as FACT whereas it isn't fact?


Really? My little girl has finished two grade levels so far (plus Pre-K), and still had neither 'evolution' nor 'Darwin' even mentioned?

Doesn't that make your point.... well, untrue?

Also - if you think 'evolution' is taught as 'fact', you didn't pay enough attention in science class, my friend. Science doesn't deal in 'facts'... it deals in theories and evidences.


He is the only one that counts.


In other words.. the only one that the anti-scientific crowd can name, yes?


That was a good movie.

Not really. It would have been a good movie if it were fiction. The fact that it represented REAL events... that some people were actually that anti-progressive - is a sad reflection.

I'll support it. I won't sign up for those classes but I'll support it!

And, THERE is the problem... people who are willing to jam unscientific matter into 'science' class.

Now, you think it okay to place astrology, alchemy and creationism ALL in the science syllabus?

And, yet, you still have the temerity to suggest nothing is being 'forced'?

Might as well teach it. If your going to teach the theories, teach the important ones.

And, the important ones ARE taught.

Lamarckism, despite being out of circulation as a principle theory, is taught in the evolution component of science class.... why?

Because, although it is not accepted as the main mechanism of evolution, it IS an alternative theory to natural selection.

And WHY is Lamarckism taught, while Intelligent Design is not? Because Lamarckism follows the Scientific Method, while ID does not.

Thus - Lamarckism (right or wrong) belongs in a 'science' class... and Intelligent Design does not.

UN programs to teach science???

I am sorry about things there, I was mostly speaking about the rights to choose here in America, I sometimes forget that things work differently in other countries and that poverty here (little food, no electricity, no heat) is rich in some countries where people don't even have a roof over thier head or access to clean water.
Having little food or no electricity is also being poor here. Portugal is not as rich as the US, but it's not Angola ;) . I shoud add that Portugal is AHEAD of the US in income equality:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality"[/URL]).

We're 65th (between Tanzania and Mauritania) and the US of A are 74th(between Cambodia and Turkmenistan)!!! We may be behind the other EU members but we are ahead of the US. 1-0 for Portugal :D

I can't really afford the private school in my area because it is $27,000 a year, and that is more than most people around here make in a year
:eek: I pay €600 (€1 = about $1.20) each year for my public university and I don't even get a place to sleep (I have to pay for one myself - and housing in Lisbon is fucking expensive). I can manage, but a lot of people I know didn't go to university because for them it's too much money spent for a degree that won't protect you from unemployment.

they can't choose to send thier kids to private school either but they can do things to change thier public schools. When I was in highschool, I had to take government class and the only books we had were 15 books from 1978 and since it was 1996 and there were 40 kids in my class (240 in the whole school in the class that semester) we really needed good books. About 150 students skipped class one day and marched around yelling really loud and generally being a pain in front of the school board. It only took about 2 hours for the school board to come 'claim' that they couldn't afford new books and about 5 min after that was shot all over the TV a few local buisnesses offered to buy the books we needed. See? People with no money getting a better education for thier kids............. that was the kind of thing I was talking about, but maybe it only happens in America (I wouldn't doubt that it did)
Books from 1978? :eek: They must have been terribly outdated. I've always had state-of-the-art books because we had to BUY them every year. And I couldn't even pass the books to my younger sister because each year -> new books for everyone! So the school book industry is doing fine here, thankyou :p

Laws are also "just" theories. It's only that they called it laws back then.

And also, please don't use the term "Darwinism" when you refer to the Theory of Evolution.

Actually, laws are indisputable facts. Look at Newton's 3rd Law of motion. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" This is an undsiputable fact.

UN programs to teach science???

There are those who say that national soverienty should be secondary to the greater good. Have you read the UN declaration on human rights? The major thrust of it is that the UN has the right to intervene in internal national matters if it is deemed necessary to preserve the individual rights as defined by the UN itself.

Kill them, I suppose.

I know! Why don't we just stop teaching our kids anything! That way they can go out and learn what they want to learn. Or, if they don't want to learn anything, they don't have to. It's a win-win situation!

(Oh, and GnI, sorry that I haven't replied to you in the John argument. School's tied me down the past couple of days. Lemme say right now thought that I'm impressed with your skills as a debator and would rather have you for an intelligent debate rather than someone slandering everything that comes out of each other's mouths. I'll get to it soon, I promise!)

Actually, laws are indisputable facts. Look at Newton's 3rd Law of motion. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" This is an undsiputable fact.
Strange, then, that so many physicists are spending so much time addressing the fact that Newtonian physics does not apply on all levels throughout the universe...perhaps they know something you do not?

YES. Humans evolved to their current states through natural processes. The Earth is flat. Two and two is five. All who dissent from common belief must have their gonads torched. YES.

Actually, laws are indisputable facts. Look at Newton's 3rd Law of motion. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" This is an undsiputable fact.

Someone doesn't understand the very basis of science, it appears. Perhaps they were too busy teaching you ID in school.

Start taxing churches and religions that want to mess around with politics and secular society. That will either shut them up or generate a bunch of revenue for the government.

Want to play the game? You gotta pay the entrance fee!

Someone doesn't understand the very basis of science, it appears. Perhaps they were too busy teaching you ID in school.
It really amazes me how many people who try to dictate science curriculems seem to have never even made an effort to learn the most basic aspects of science. I don't expect everybody to be an evolutionary biologist or a brilliant physicist, but I do expect people who presume to define our educational system to learn the fundamentals of science.

Start taxing churches and religions that want to mess around with politics and secular society. That will either shut them up or generate a bunch of revenue for the government.

Want to play the game? You gotta pay the entrance fee!
In theory, that's kind of what is already supposed to be happening. Sadly, the system isn't enforced very well, and plenty of religious organizations simply get away with breaking the law. The laws are also kind of fuzzy, so even when we want to enforce them we can run into problems.

Here's the general rules, via the IRS:

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches
and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
■ their net earnings may not inure to any private
shareholder or individual,
■ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private
interests,
■ they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,
■ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Now, "substantial" is a term used several times, and that's where the fuzzing comes in.

Strange, then, that so many physicists are spending so much time addressing the fact that Newtonian physics does not apply on all levels throughout the universe...perhaps they know something you do not?

Funny that Gravity affects all things, including planets. Newton's universal Law of gravity.

Someone doesn't understand the very basis of science, it appears. Perhaps they were too busy teaching you ID in school.

I have actually studied science. I have also study Astronomy. I got mostly B's in my the physics classes that I have had and passed every test in regards to Newton.

I still continue to study physics on and off since it does deal with Meteorology.

Start taxing churches and religions that want to mess around with politics and secular society. That will either shut them up or generate a bunch of revenue for the government.

Want to play the game? You gotta pay the entrance fee!

And watch as every church and mosque and temple erupt in fury. Those that do vote for that tax will not stay in office and the tax would be revoked. It would be political suicide to pass such a thing.

Not to mention it would be considered Unconstitutional.

Stop overeacting. And don't teach it as a science course, teach it as something else. Also, use criticisms.

Funny that Gravity affects all things, including planets. Newton's universal Law of gravity.
You're not serious, are you? Have you honestly just completely missed like the last 100 years of physics?

You're not serious, are you? Have you honestly just completely missed like the last 100 years of physics?

I haven't been around for 100 years :p

No I haven't missed the last 100 years of Phsical science. I have spent to much time studying it though.

I still continue to study physics on and off since it does deal with Meteorology.
So you "continue to study physics," yet have managed to somehow overlook tiny details like, say, the fact that classical mechanics is only ONE of the TWO fundamental sub-fields in physics? You managed to get B's in a physics class (one would presume within the last 50 years or so) without having any awareness of a little thing called "quantum mechanics"? Where the hell have you been going to school?!

Please tell me you've heard of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger...? Any of the great minds in physics from the last CENTURY?! Please tell me that your knowledge of science does not stop in the 17th century.

I haven't been around for 100 years :p

You don't need to have been. I wasn't around for the American Revolution, but I've learned about it.


No I haven't missed the last 100 years of Phsical science. I have spent to much time studying it though.
So you've been studying the last 100 years of physics, without learning anything about quantum mechanics? How the hell does that work?

Funny that Gravity affects all things, including planets. Newton's universal Law of gravity.
Seriously, Corneliu, if you've managed to uncover a definitive way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity then you need to go claim your Nobel Prize.

And watch as every church and mosque and temple erupt in fury. Those that do vote for that tax will not stay in office and the tax would be revoked. It would be political suicide to pass such a thing.

It's true, religious groups really seem to hate being expected to follow the same laws as everybody else, and they lobby like hell to protect their special treatment. Sad reality of our times, I guess.


Not to mention it would be considered Unconstitutional.
Wow, how bizarre that we currently have laws stating that religious organizations cannot maintain tax-exempt status if they get directly involved in politics (like by telling their congregations which candidate in an election to vote for, etc). Even stranger, that we automatically tax religious institutions unless they specifically ask for (and are granted) tax-exempt status. I guess maybe your legal studies stopped a few centuries ago, along with your physics studies...?

And watch as every church and mosque and temple erupt in fury. Those that do vote for that tax will not stay in office and the tax would be revoked. It would be political suicide to pass such a thing.

Not to mention it would be considered Unconstitutional.

It is not unconstitutional. The government can and does tax churches, currently ones that dont meet the requirements for tax exempt status, those requirements are just guidelines set by the IRS and can be easily changed.

Tax every church, mosque and temple!!!!!!!!!

It is not unconstitutional. The government can and does tax churches, currently ones that dont meet the requirements for tax exempt status, those requirements are just guidelines set by the IRS and can be easily changed.

Tax every church, mosque and temple!!!!!!!!!

We won't attack you, but the the fundy idiots will.

Actually, laws are indisputable facts. Look at Newton's 3rd Law of motion. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" This is an undsiputable fact.

Wrong, my friend. 'Laws' of science are just theories... but they called them laws back then.

If, for example, we found a macrocosmic body that disobeyed Newton's 'laws'... (I say macrocosmic, because we already KNOW that quantum bodies laugh at physics...), they would be altered to fit the new data.

There is no such thing as a 'fact', in science. Which is the way we LIKE it.

Wrong, my friend. 'Laws' of science are just theories... but they called them laws back then.

If, for example, we found a macrocosmic body that disobeyed Newton's 'laws'... (I say macrocosmic, because we already KNOW that quantum bodies laugh at physics...), they would be altered to fit the new data.

There is no such thing as a 'fact', in science. Which is the way we LIKE it.
Not to mention that Newton's "laws" have been the subject of intense debate in recent history! But I guess we've got to write Albert Einstein out of the history books, lest our poor children be "brainwashed" into learning "unproven" science...

I know! Why don't we just stop teaching our kids anything! That way they can go out and learn what they want to learn. Or, if they don't want to learn anything, they don't have to. It's a win-win situation!

(Oh, and GnI, sorry that I haven't replied to you in the John argument. School's tied me down the past couple of days. Lemme say right now thought that I'm impressed with your skills as a debator and would rather have you for an intelligent debate rather than someone slandering everything that comes out of each other's mouths. I'll get to it soon, I promise!)

Why, thank you, my friend.

Whenever you get to it, I'll be eagerly awaiting it. Oh - or I'll be too busy, real life is like that, no?

I look forward to your contribution.

Not to mention that Newton's "laws" have been the subject of intense debate in recent history! But I guess we've got to write Albert Einstein out of the history books, lest our poor children be "brainwashed" into learning "unproven" science...

You know... I think you might be onto something.... Maybe the ID crowd, et al, are so desperate to wedge their topics into science BECAUSE science has no 'facts', no 'laws'... no 'Truths'.

I can see how that could just drive SOME people crazy... :)

You know... I think you might be onto something.... Maybe the ID crowd, et al, are so desperate to wedge their topics into science BECAUSE science has no 'facts', no 'laws'... no 'Truths'.

I can see how that could just drive SOME people crazy... :)
Meh. If they don't like science then they can quit using it to make their own lives easier. These numbskulls use all the technologies and advances science has provided, while simultaneously hindering, degrading, and insulting all things scientific. If the Creationists really believed anything they were spouting, they'd put their money where their mouths are.

In answer to the main question - it doesnt matter. There IS no way to save the world from creationists. They'll gain in power, just as they've been itching to do ever since the glory days of the Inquisition, before Evil Science and Reason came to ruin the fun for everyone. And that'll be the end of the First Age of Reason. Which will be renamed "The Age of Ungodliness" or something. And that'll be that.

Meh. If they don't like science then they can quit using it to make their own lives easier. These numbskulls use all the technologies and advances science has provided, while simultaneously hindering, degrading, and insulting all things scientific. If the Creationists really believed anything they were spouting, they'd put their money where their mouths are.
you don't really think that creationists are rejecting all science do you?
I mean basically they just reject one theory. Is it really all or nothing with you? If so that could cause some real problems.

you don't really think that creationists are rejecting all science do you?
I mean basically they just reject one theory. Is it really all or nothing with you? If so that could cause some real problems.

Quite the other way, I believe.

Bottle seems to be saying that Creationists are happy to accept the fruits of the Scientific Method when it means they can microwave their popcorn, get better gas milage, or cure their prostate cancer...

Then they turn and rubbish the Scientific Method when it dares to question the absolute literal truth of the Genesis account.

Creationists are, therefore, somewhat hypocritical.

Quite the other way, I believe.

Bottle seems to be saying that Creationists are happy to accept the fruits of the Scientific Method when it means they can microwave their popcorn, get better gas milage, or cure their prostate cancer...

Then they turn and rubbish the Scientific Method when it dares to question the absolute literal truth of the Genesis account.

Creationists are, therefore, somewhat hypocritical.
okay. I can agree with that then. (the part about them being hypocritical)

Quite the other way, I believe.

Bottle seems to be saying that Creationists are happy to accept the fruits of the Scientific Method when it means they can microwave their popcorn, get better gas milage, or cure their prostate cancer...

Then they turn and rubbish the Scientific Method when it dares to question the absolute literal truth of the Genesis account.

Creationists are, therefore, somewhat hypocritical.
In a word: yup.

Also, Creationists who love bashing evolutionary theory are strangely willing to make use of medical technologies that were developed using evolutionary theory. For instance, the flu vaccine. If you don't want your kids learning evolution, fine...then you shouldn't be vaccinating your kids with evolution-tainted medicines. If you're going to campaign AGAINST the scientific education of the next generation, then quit expecting science to help you out. Creationists are working so very hard to return us to the Dark Ages, so they should damn well get used to living in the Dark Ages.

My solution to the whole debate is simple: anybody who doesn't believe in evolution should stop using medicines developed using evolutionary principles, and anybody who rejects Creationism (anti-evolutionary Creationism, that is) should refuse to use medications developed using Creationism. Whoever is still alive in 30 years wins the debate.

What I don't get is why they (creationists) hate evolution so much. Is God going to be less God like if evolution is true? No He's not so why bother fighting something that every smart person on the planet has already accepted? All they're doing is killing religion and hurting moderates like me...:headbang:

It is not unconstitutional. The government can and does tax churches, currently ones that dont meet the requirements for tax exempt status, those requirements are just guidelines set by the IRS and can be easily changed.

Tax every church, mosque and temple!!!!!!!!!

Actually, it would be considered unconstitution since we have this little thing called the first amendment?

Actually, it would be considered unconstitution since we have this little thing called the first amendment?

Nope, they would still be allowed to say what they want, they would just lose their tax exempt status. Just like regular citizen groups and political parties/organizations can say what they want but have to pay taxes on all monies they gather/collect.

Religion should have NOTHING to do with poltics, but most if not all churches/mosques/temples insist on being involved in politics, even going so far as to tell their members how to vote (not suggesting but actually saying "If you dont vote for so-and-so, you are a liar, a sinner and are going to hell.") Freedom of religion? yea right. They are being caught with their hands in the "politics" cookiee jar, so they should be punished, and the only thing organized religion understands is money.

Nope, they would still be allowed to say what they want, they would just lose their tax exempt status. Just like regular citizen groups and political parties/organizations can say what they want but have to pay taxes on all monies they gather/collect.

Sorry but alot of those tax empt people do a ton of charity work. And then we go back to what I said orginially. It'll be political suicide to do what you are suggesting and the Courts will more than likely rule that it is unconstitutional.

Religion should have NOTHING to do with religion

What the hell are you smoking? :confused:

Religion should have NOTHING to do with religion, .

what?:confused:

What the hell are you smoking? :confused:

(fixed it) The same stuff everyone else is smoking, just alot more.

(fixed it) The same stuff everyone else is smoking, just alot more.

Good I'm glad you fixed it and fyi I don't smoke anything

Good I'm glad you fixed it and fyi I don't smoke anything

The first step is admitting you have a problem :D

The first step is admitting you have a problem :D

:rolleyes:

I have actually studied science. I have also study Astronomy. I got mostly B's in my the physics classes that I have had and passed every test in regards to Newton.

I still continue to study physics on and off since it does deal with Meteorology.
If you think gravity and Newtonian physics are universal and apply at all levels then you should study more. Newtonian physics may get into all the good VIP rooms at a macro level, but on a quantum level Newtonian physics is rejected by the bouncer for wearing white sox with black shoes.

What's most amusing is that people like you, yes people like you, don't seem to get that I don't care if you send me your thesis that earned you a PhD in physics, if you don't understand the most basic premise of science. You know what that basic premise is? There is no such thing as indisputable? All things are disputable and anything that can not be disputed using science and will not continue to be disputed using science is not considered science. The most basic component of a theory is that it MUST be falsifiable.

"I know my physics, dammit. And my physics knowledge tells me... blad, blah, blah."

If the blah, blah, blah is a load a crap that would make most second-graders laugh you off the playground then no one cares what credentials you claim to have.

If you think gravity and Newtonian physics are universal and apply at all levels then you should study more. Newtonian physics may get into all the good VIP rooms at a macro level, but at a subatomic level Newtonian physics is rejected by the bouncer for wearing white sox with black shoes.

Perhaps a better analogy would be: "rejected by the bouncer for wearing a pink tutu. No, green tutu. It's a kilt. Slacks. Paisley Slacks. No - it was a tutu...."... :D

Glad to see I'm not the only person alive who remembers modern physics...the way Corneliu was going on, I thought perhaps I'd stumbled into another dimension or something, one in which quantum physics had not yet been described. I was preparing to burst onto the physics scene with my "discovery" of relativity, making myself an easy million in Nobel money!

Actually, it would be considered unconstitution since we have this little thing called the first amendment?
Um, hon? I don't think the First Amendement says what you think it says.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Taxing something or someone has already been decided to NOT violate their first amendment rights. We can tax a newspaper publisher without infringing on freedom of the press. We can tax a concert without infringing on the right of freedom of assembly. And we can (and do) tax religious organizations, individuals, icons, and properties without infringing on the free expression of religion.

Religious groups can apply for tax-exempt status, which they get if they follow a particular set of rules, but you don't automatically get to be tax-exempt just because you worship a particular incarnation of the Sky Fairy. Just ask the Scientologists...they've been having a bitch of a time with this stuff.

Before you try to tell people what physics is, you might want to make sure you understand the most basic concepts in modern physics. Before you start telling people what the Constitution says, you might want to check to make sure the Supreme Court and the federal government actually work the way you think they do. I doubt people will be willing to put faith in your judgment of what is and is not science if you're unwilling to even do rudamentary fact-checks on your own claims.

Bottle,

It wouldn't even be attempted. Also, if they did try to do that, those that do charity work would suffer from it.

Also, the law would be challenged and I'll place odds that it would be ruled unconstitutional.

oh and Jocabia: Point out where I was refering to the subatomic level would you please.

Bottle,

It wouldn't even be attempted. Also, if they did try to do that, those that do charity work would suffer from it.

Also, the law would be challenged and I'll place odds that it would be ruled unconstitutional.

Okay, you're really worrying me now.

Let me try again: IT ALREADY IS ATTEMPTED. IT HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED FOR A VERY VERY LONG TIME. IT HAPPENS. ALREADY. ALREADY HAPPENS.


oh and Jocabia: Point out where I was refering to the subatomic level would you please.

Corneliu: "Funny that Gravity affects all things"

*snip*

Tell me where I was refering to the subatomic level.

Tell me where I was refering to the subatomic level.
If I say, "the law of gravity applies to all planets," do I later get to go back and say, "show me where I was refering to the planet Jupiter?" Of course not. Because that would be a chickenshit way for me to weasel out of having publicly embarassed myself.

EDIT: Of course, as far as we know the law of gravity does apply to all planets, so this comparison isn't spot-on, but you all see where I'm going.

SECOND EDIT: Hmm, okay, so you ALL don't see where I'm going, because Corneliu clearly didn't get the analogy, but MOST of your see where I'm going...don't you?

If I say, "the law of gravity applies to all planets," do I later get to go back and say, "show me where I was refering to the planet Jupiter?" Of course not. Because that would be a chickenshit way for me to weasel out of having publicly embarassed myself.

Ok, now your dodging. Have a nice day.

Ok, now your dodging. Have a nice day.
*Sigh* No, darling, I was answering your question.

You stated, with no exemptions, that the law of gravity applies to ALL THINGS. You did not specify, "all things, except subatomic particles." You said ALL THINGS. Subatomic particles are things.

Are we all caught up now?

*Sigh* No, darling, I was answering your question.

You stated, with no exemptions, that the law of gravity applies to ALL THINGS. You did not specify, "all things, except subatomic particles." You said ALL THINGS. Subatomic particles are things.

Are we all caught up now?

Believe what you will. Have a nice day.

Believe what you will. Have a nice day.
Oh, it's shaping up to be a great day, thanks! I love starting out with a hearty chuckle in the morning :).

*Sigh* No, darling, I was answering your question.
You stated, with no exemptions, that the law of gravity applies to ALL THINGS. You did not specify, "all things, except subatomic particles." You said ALL THINGS. Subatomic particles are things.
Are we all caught up now?
Methinks you both have forgotten that matter behaves in a radically different manner on the subatomic level than on the, say, planetary (e.g. VERY big) level.

In any case, I don't get why the M0ds locked my thread and let this one continue :(

Methinks you both have forgotten that matter behaves in a radically different manner on the subatomic level than on the, say, planetary (e.g. VERY big) level.

Um, I haven't forgotten that...indeed, that's my whole freaking point. Classical mechanics falls apart somewhat at the subatomic level, and the search for a unifying theory has been one of the greatest quests in the history of physics. Subatomic particles are "things," and thus saying that Newtonian gravity applies to "all things" is not true.

This whole thing could have been easily avoided if Corneliu had simply said, "Oops, I made a mistake. I used over-general language and was logically misunderstood by those who read my post and took me at my words. I should have specified that the Newtonian law of gravity does not necessarily apply at the subatomic level. I knew that, of course, I just forgot to say so. Sorry for the confusion, everybody!"

At which point, I would have replied, "Ahh, very well then. Understandable mistake, sorry if I heckled you undeservedly. Let's get back to the real topic, shall we?"

In any case, I don't get why the M0ds locked my thread and let this one continue :(
Probably duplication. I dunno, the mods work in mysterious ways :).

Methinks you both have forgotten that matter behaves in a radically different manner on the subatomic level than on the, say, planetary (e.g. VERY big) level.

In any case, I don't get why the M0ds locked my thread and let this one continue :(

You should inquire about that Super-power. I was enjoying your thread too.

If people want to teach creationism in schools, let them. After you get done teaching them creationism, teach them the giant spaghetti monster theory and compare the two for validity. Finally, once everyone is done wrestling with both of those, teach evolution.
New York, New York, October 27, 2005
Special to The Raving Atheist (http://www.ravingatheist.com/)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn -- the world's oldest and most respected parody deity -- has denounced Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as a "cult."

"Mainline philosophical atheism has being cheapened by the introduction of this recent, imperfect analogy," said the IPU. "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a commercial fad which exploits the needs of the non-gulllible for quick and easy ridicule of religion."

The IPU noted that the FSM is visible, rendering impossible mockery of the theistic argument that God's elusiveness proves His existence. "Countless Christians have fallen into the trap of arguing that absence of evidence for me is evidence of my absence, only to realize, too late, that the same standard vanquishes their own phantom God," she said. "But they can just point to pictures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say "that's ridiculous.'"

The IPU also touted her own long intellectual pedigree, noting that she was painstakingly developed by bearded engineering graduate students at infidels.org. "The Spaghetti Monster, however, was cooked up in a couple of minutes by a lone crank in an angry letter to a Kansas school board, a document which proves he was just made up." In contrast, the IPU's origins are mysterious, clouded in the murky pre-history of internet usenet boards.

Bottle,

It wouldn't even be attempted. Also, if they did try to do that, those that do charity work would suffer from it.

Also, the law would be challenged and I'll place odds that it would be ruled unconstitutional.

oh and Jocabia: Point out where I was refering to the subatomic level would you please.

as pointed out, you said all things. You said it was a law. You do know that it was called the LAW of gravity before quantum mechanics was discovered (before its limitations were discovered). It's okay. You stand corrected. Laws are not indisputable fact. Nothing scientific is. In fact, it is completely unscientific to call something indisputable. But you knew that with all your credentials.

EDIT: "You made me look silly. I'm taking my things and going home." Can I say how much I loved reading that reaction?

EDIT: "You made me look silly. I'm taking my things and going home." Can I say how much I loved reading that reaction?
Dude, I missed you guys this morning...I was sitting there cracking up over his behavior, but nobody else was around to appreciate it :(.

Dude, I missed you guys this morning...I was sitting there cracking up over his behavior, but nobody else was around to appreciate it :(.
Maybe some more of the anit-science people can show up and we can have an episode of the Simpsons. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about the fact that ALL scientific hypotheses must be definition be falsifiable and thus must not be by that same definition absolute.

Maybe some more of the anit-science people can show up and we can have an episode of the Simpsons. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about the fact that ALL scientific hypotheses must be definition be falsifiable and thus must not be by that same definition absolute.
I dunno, it's gonna be tough to top this last bit of discussion. Even most Creationists don't have denial down to quite such an art.

"I didn't say that."
"It's right here, you typed it."
"No, I didn't."
"But...you...it...it's right there!"
"No."

"They can't ever make a law like that. It's unconstitutional. People would rise up in revolt."
"They did make one, and it's been on the books for quite a while, and it works, and has been upheld as constitutional."
"They can't ever make a law like that."
"But...it...they...THERE IS A LAW LIKE THAT! IT'S RIGHT HERE!"
"No."

I dunno, it's gonna be tough to top this last bit of discussion. Even most Creationists don't have denial down to quite such an art.

"I didn't say that."
"It's right here, you typed it."
"No, I didn't."
"But...you...it...it's right there!"
"No."

"They can't ever make a law like that. It's unconstitutional. People would rise up in revolt."
"They did make one, and it's been on the books for quite a while, and it works, and has been upheld as constitutional."
"They can't ever make a law like that."
"But...it...they...THERE IS A LAW LIKE THAT! IT'S RIGHT HERE!"
"No."

Oh, come on. I have to reject that point. I was much more floored by someone suggesting you can calculate the probability of God because it's somehow the same as comparing two mutually geometric shapes. I'm going to start making this arguments too.

I say God is like having ten fingers. Let's just keep ignoring reality.

"I have ten fingers therefore ID belongs in the classroom. What do you mean that doesn't make sense as a comparison? It must make sense. Why? Cuz I said so."

Oh, come on. I have to reject that point. I was much more floored by someone suggesting you can calculate the probability of God because it's somehow the same as comparing two mutually geometric shapes. I'm going to start making this arguments too.

I say God is like having ten fingers. Let's just keep ignoring reality.

"I have ten fingers therefore ID belongs in the classroom. What do you mean that doesn't make sense as a comparison? It must make sense. Why? Cuz I said so."
Well, the thing is that SOME definitions of God ARE like square circles. So there are situations where that person's claims are perfectly accurate. The only trouble is when you try to apply them to "god" in general..."god" is a term with so many meanings that it is meaningless, so there's no more point in debating the existence of "god" than in debating the existence of "flooknar."

Well, the thing is that SOME definitions of God ARE like square circles. So there are situations where that person's claims are perfectly accurate. The only trouble is when you try to apply them to "god" in general..."god" is a term with so many meanings that it is meaningless, so there's no more point in debating the existence of "god" than in debating the existence of "flooknar."

Yes, but the problem is that we aren't debating a concept. We are debating an existence. If God or gods exist they are not defined by us. Suggesting that probability can be calculated for existence based on NO evidence is ridiculous. That's the strawman people use. They take the most ridiculous 'definition' of God they can find and argue that because they can show it rejects science that God must not exist. Reasonable people recognize that if evidence and your concept of ANYTHING contradict and we can't find any rational reason to reject the evidence then we must redefine our concept. Thus, people who claim God is disproven and people who reject evidence because they think it contradicts God are both equally blind.

Saving the world from creationism basically amounts to taking children away from their parents and teaching them through government-funded and regulated boarding schools. There really is no other means except waiting until religions change their views to adapt better to the modern world and the science we know today. I would recommend you simply do that, wait until creationism effectively dies out due to changes in religion.

Or until all the scientists and all who support them in their crusade die and go to meet their maker, where they find out just how grievously they screwed up.

Look. It's quite simple. It's all about balance. Science should not hold sway in all things no more than should religion should. One is for the home, the other for the classroom. You guys always get soooooo worked up over creationalism when there are so many more important issues to freak out over. You have a problem with a schools' curriculum? Move your child out of that school. Problem solved. Home school the kid. You guys act as though this is an insidious creeping malaise that if left unchecked, will wreck civilization as we know it or something. Get a grip.

Maybe some more of the anit-science people can show up and we can have an episode of the Simpsons.

Now who said anything about me being anti-science? I love science. If I didn't, I wouldn't have choosen a science laden career field when I first entered college.

Now who said anything about me being anti-science? I love science. If I didn't, I wouldn't have choosen a science laden career field when I first entered college.

Interesting, that. You'd think you'd embrace the scientific method in such a case, but I suppose I'm logical like that.

Interesting, that. You'd think you'd embrace the scientific method in such a case, but I suppose I'm logical like that.

My science career field that I was originally in was Meteorology.

My science career field that I was originally in was Meteorology.

Don't care. I judge your posts on content not on your claimed credentials. Claiming credentials that suggest you should know better actually disappoints me further. You should know that fallibility is a basic tenet of the scientific method.

Um, hon? I don't think the First Amendement says what you think it says.


Bottle is first to successfully invoke the Montoya Principle.

Thus, Bottle wins.

:D

Tell me where I was refering to the subatomic level.

I think it was when you used the word 'all'.

Surprised you didn't catch that, yourself...

Now who said anything about me being anti-science? I love science. If I didn't, I wouldn't have choosen a science laden career field when I first entered college.

Maybe Jocabia means you are 'anti-science' in as much as real science explodes in your presence?

Interesting, that. You'd think you'd embrace the scientific method in such a case, but I suppose I'm logical like that.
You crazy fool. Let me give you a view into the mind of this particular breed of "Science-lover":

Hello, I'm a Creationist "science-lover." In my mind, "embracing science" and "loving science" refer to "really liking when science confirms the opinions I've already decided to hold." When science stubbornly insists that I'm mistaken, obviously science must be in the wrong. I believe that it's nice to live past the age of 25, so I love that science has provided me with the comforts and protections of modern medicine. However, I dislike the idea of evolution because it conflicts with my personal opinions, so it's mean of science to accumulate a pile of evidence showing my opinion to be inconsistent with reality.

What you're left with is a form of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I love science, so long as it's doing exactly what I want it to do. As soon as science does something I don't like, I hate on that particular thing while still insisting that I'm a science-lover. Yes, I realize that science is, itself, the very act of questioning and honest evaluation, and that it's logically impossible for any rational person to simultaneously "love" science while hating everything it stands for...but that's where the power of Belief comes in!

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

I can think of far more pressing issues that this:

1. Why are kids being "socially advanced"?

It is common in the present school system to advance kids to make sure they remain in their "age group". Holding kids back, who are not learning, is becomming a no-no in many school systems. It is far better, in many educators eyes, these days, to advance a child to the next grade, even if they are failing, to make sure they are surrounded by the same "friends" and "peers".

2. Why is it, despite all this standardization, kids are still not learning proper grammar or spelling?

3. Why are we basing appointment of department heads based upon paper licensure, as opposed to actual established capability? Why are people being choosen as "department heads" merely off of their "specialist license"; when they have demonstratabily poor leadership skills?

I can think of far more pressing issues that this:

1. Why are kids being "socially advanced"?

It is common in the present school system to advance kids to make sure they remain in their "age group". Holding kids back, who are not learning, is becomming a no-no in many school systems. It is far better, in many educators eyes, these days, to advance a child to the next grade, even if they are failing, to make sure they are surrounded by the same "friends" and "peers".

2. Why is it, despite all this standardization, kids are still not learning proper grammar or spelling?

3. Why are we basing appointment of department heads based upon paper licensure, as opposed to actual established capability? Why are people being choosen as "department heads" merely off of their "specialist license"; when they have demonstratabily poor leadership skills?

Yes and amazingly, in the midst of all this, there are people trying to take the curriculae further from where it needs the be in order for children to properly educated. So first we prevent from getting worse and then we make it better. ID'ers are trying to make it worse, so my guess is that your argument would be more appropriate when aimed towards them.

Maybe Jocabia means you are 'anti-science' in as much as real science explodes in your presence?

Can we say this to people in several of the threads because it seems like people are blowing up science in at least three of the threads of late? All of them claim to be scientists or am I the only one who noticed that?

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

Ask them why they believe what they do, and then make yer own mind up, mister.

You crazy fool. Let me give you a view into the mind of this particular breed of "Science-lover":

Hello, I'm a Creationist "science-lover." In my mind, "embracing science" and "loving science" refer to "really liking when science confirms the opinions I've already decided to hold." When science stubbornly insists that I'm mistaken, obviously science must be in the wrong. I believe that it's nice to live past the age of 25, so I love that science has provided me with the comforts and protections of modern medicine. However, I dislike the idea of evolution because it conflicts with my personal opinions, so it's mean of science to accumulate a pile of evidence showing my opinion to be inconsistent with reality.

What you're left with is a form of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I love science, so long as it's doing exactly what I want it to do. As soon as science does something I don't like, I hate on that particular thing while still insisting that I'm a science-lover. Yes, I realize that science is, itself, the very act of questioning and honest evaluation, and that it's logically impossible for any rational person to simultaneously "love" science while hating everything it stands for...but that's where the power of Belief comes in!

And what exactly can science do that you don't like? Deduce you out of existence?

And what exactly can science do that you don't like? Deduce you out of existence?
The Creationist "science-lover" is far more concerned with science "disproving" God. Of course, science cannot prove or disprove God (by definition), it can only prove or disprove certain elements of the Creationists' VIEW of God, so what these fears really boil down to is that the Creationist is terrified of realizing that "God" might not fit with their personal preconceptions :).

Maybe Jocabia means you are 'anti-science' in as much as real science explodes in your presence?

I'm not anti-science. I believe in science however I do not buy into evolution.

I'm not anti-science. I believe in science however I do not buy into evolution.

"I agree with science except when it disagrees with my faith."

Okay, let's walk through the scientific method.

First, outline what you think is wrong with the scientific theory based on observed phenomena. Then make a testable scientific hypothesis addressing the observed phenomena that doesn't fit within evolution. Let's start from there. Go.

"I agree with science except when it disagrees with my faith."

I'm sorry but care to point out where you got that please?

Okay, let's walk through the scientific method.

I already know the scientific method thank you very much.

I'm sorry but care to point out where you got that please?

You're right. I shouldn't have started with that statement. I retract it. It was more frustration with another poster.

I already know the scientific method thank you very much.

I wasn't explaining the scientific method, I was suggesting that we actually do that in the thread. If you demonstrate that your problem with evolution is based on observable evidence and you offer a better scientific hypothesis then we can work from there. Anything less than that is rejection on faith.

I meant let's walk through it in the thread. I wasn't explaining it to you.

I wasn't explaining the scientific method, I was suggesting that we actually do that in the thread. If you demonstrate that your problem with evolution is based on observable evidence and you offer a better scientific hypothesis then we can work from there. Anything less than that is rejection on faith.

I meant let's walk through it in the thread. I wasn't explaining it to you.
Uh oh, here we go again...

"Let's try using the scientific method, okay?"
"I already know the scientific method."
"Yes, I'm sure you do. Can we try to apply it to this situation?"
"I already know the scientific method."
"We all get that. We're very happy for you. Would you please join us in applying it to this situation?"
"I already know the scientific method."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Uh oh, here we go again...

"Let's try using the scientific method, okay?"
"I already know the scientific method."
"Yes, I'm sure you do. Can we try to apply it to this situation?"
"I already know the scientific method."
"We all get that. We're very happy for you. Would you please join us in applying it to this situation?"
"I already know the scientific method."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Notice the quick reply until I restated that I am looking for evidence of how his view on evolution is scientific, then suddenly long silence.

Notice the quick reply until I restated that I am looking for evidence of how his view on evolution is scientific, then suddenly long silence.
Let's hope for the best: he may be composing a long, detailed, thought-out post.

Let's hope for the best: he may be composing a long, detailed, thought-out post.

It's just annoying.

1:You don't seem to support the scientific method for reasons A, B and C.
2: I'm a meteorologist.
3: But you're posts violate the scientific method for reasons A, B and C.
2: I know the scientific method.
1: Yes, we understand that you are meteorologist very versed in the scientific method. Would you care to address our points?
2: I'm a meteorologist. Argh! Let go of my throat.

It's just annoying.

1:You don't seem to support the scientific method for reasons A, B and C.
2: I'm a meteorologist.
3: But you're posts violate the scientific method for reasons A, B and C.
2: I know the scientific method.
1: Yes, we understand that you are meteorologist very versed in the scientific method. Would you care to address our points?
2: I'm a meteorologist. Argh! Let go of my throat.
I'm more annoyed with his dishonest backpedaling on the gravity thing, and his behavior regarding the legal information I provided. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but I definitely mind when they consciously decide NOT to learn from those mistakes.

I'm more annoyed with his dishonest backpedaling on the gravity thing, and his behavior regarding the legal information I provided. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but I definitely mind when they consciously decide NOT to learn from those mistakes.

I would actually find it less annoying if science wasn't being rejected in several threads by people all claiming that their interaction with science makes them infallible regardless of how obvious their rejection of evidence is.

Notice the quick reply until I restated that I am looking for evidence of how his view on evolution is scientific, then suddenly long silence.

Didn't it cross your mind that I might have had something that was a tad more important than debating things online?

Didn't it cross your mind that I might have had something that was a tad more important than debating things online?
*GASP* Blasphemy! There is nothing more important than debating on NationStates!!! :)

*GASP* Blasphemy! There is nothing more important than debating on NationStates!!! :)

There are several things more important than this.

1) Schoolwork
2) nap
3) food

These are just 3 things that come to mind :D

Can we say this to people in several of the threads because it seems like people are blowing up science in at least three of the threads of late? All of them claim to be scientists or am I the only one who noticed that?

Oh no, my friend, I've noticed it too.

It's just one of those things... an interwebs phenomenon, or something....

Like the blonde supermodel who turns out to be a 350 lb trucker who lives in his mom's basement.

This is the net. You can CLAIM to be whatever you wish. Which is why I make MY judgements on what people SHOW they can do, rather than what they SAY they can do.

You'll notice that the people I respect most, are those that can BACK UP what they claim, REGARDLESS of whether I agree with them or not - people like: yourself, Ph33rdom, Dempublicents, Bottle, UpwardThrust, Straughn, Cat-Tribes, etc.

I'm not anti-science. I believe in science however I do not buy into evolution.

That, my friend, is your right.. and I'd defend it to the death.

However, that doesn't make you right, and 'evolution' wrong.

In fact, having seen the wealth of arguments presented FOR evolution, and the masses of evidence to support it - and contrasting that with... well, what you've got... I'm sticking with 'evolution', for the time being.

I'm more annoyed with his dishonest backpedaling on the gravity thing, and his behavior regarding the legal information I provided. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but I definitely mind when they consciously decide NOT to learn from those mistakes.

Unfortunately, "La la la" seems to be considered a valid defense, in some circles...

You'll notice that the people I respect most, are those that can BACK UP what they claim, REGARDLESS of whether I agree with them or not - people like: yourself, Ph33rdom, Dempublicents, Bottle, UpwardThrust, Straughn, Cat-Tribes, etc.
Yeah, there's a level of nerdy that just can't be faked :).

No, I'm pretty sure that uprooting your whole life and going somewhere else on the hope that you might be able to land a similar position isn't something that you would do in reaction to something that doesn't affect you.

You are aware that people move large distances and take lesser paying jobs so that they can live in districts with good schools? You are aware that most people, while perhaps not directly affected, consider themselves pretty affected by whether or not their child can obtain a good education?

That's quite a promise. I forgive you in advance for breaking it (not sarcasm, I really do forgive you).

OK, there's something God (theoretically of course) wants. Let's say he wants everyone to believe in him (you can choose if a different desire if you like). However, he doesn't have this. Nope. Poor guy. So why doesn't he have it? Does he not desire it? Of course he does, we've already got that. Then the only other solution is that he is not able to get it. But if he's God he should be able to get anything - he's omnipotent. Well he can't be both 1) able to get anything and 2) not be able to get something. That's a contradiction. But that's how he's defined. Therefore the definition is a contradiction. The word "God" is just a label for that definition, and since the definition is a contradiction it is wrong. Therefore God is something that cannot be true (i.e. exist).

This may have been a little confusing, but I assumed you'd have no knowledge of logical notation (which would may it a lot easier to read).

This is easy.

An omnipotent being can do anything, right? Thus, an omnipotent being could place limits upon its power. Those limits are not absolute, as it could also decide at any time to remove the limits.

It goes back to questions like, "Could God create a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it?" The logical answer is, of course, "Yes." However, that limit would be placed by God, and God could then lift the limitation, and then be able to lift it.

Human beings do this as well, in a limited sense. If I got angry enough that I wanted someone dead, I could go and kill them. It might even make me happy. However, I have limited myself by stating that I won't kill someone. Therefore, I'm not going to do it. I would really like some ice cream right now. There is some in the freezer. I could go get it. However, I am limiting my desserts, so I'm not going to go get it - I have placed that limitation upon myself.

This is easy.

An omnipotent being can do anything, right? Thus, an omnipotent being could place limits upon its power. Those limits are not absolute, as it could also decide at any time to remove the limits.

It goes back to questions like, "Could God create a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it?" The logical answer is, of course, "Yes." However, that limit would be placed by God, and God could then lift the limitation, and then be able to lift it.

Human beings do this as well, in a limited sense. If I got angry enough that I wanted someone dead, I could go and kill them. It might even make me happy. However, I have limited myself by stating that I won't kill someone. Therefore, I'm not going to do it. I would really like some ice cream right now. There is some in the freezer. I could go get it. However, I am limiting my desserts, so I'm not going to go get it - I have placed that limitation upon myself.
That doesn't sound like the same thing at all. Whether or not you WILL do something is quite different from whether or not you CAN do that thing. You may be choosing not to get ice cream or kill people, but you still COULD do those things. Similarly, God could choose not to lift a particular rock, but that wouldn't be the same as a situation in which he COULD NOT lift that rock. If God can turn his own capabilities on and off as easily as we can choose or not choose to do a thing, then I think the "logical" answer to your originally-posed question is that God, if omnipotent, could lift anything, and therefore there could not be an object He would be unable to lift. He could elect not to lift certain rocks, but He would always have the ability to remove that restriction from his own behavior and therefore would always be capable of moving the rock (if he so desired). On the other hand, by definition of being omnipotent, He would have to be able to creat the unmoveable rock...so we're back at the same old paradox.

In other words, the omnipotent God could create a situation in which there was a rock that He was prevented from lifting. However, the only thing preventing Him from lifting the rock would be His own will, and therefore He still would have the innate ability to lift the rock whenever He wanted to. It's like how I can lift my chair, but I can also elect to pick up so many freeweights that I would not be able to pick up the chair in addition to those burdens...I still have the innate ability to lift the chair, all I've got to do is put down the weights I've decided to pick up. Nothing about my innate ability has changed, nor has any quality of the chair, I've just chosen to create a special situation in which my ability to lift the chair is restricted. The original question was, "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?" but you have answered "Can God create a situation in which He would allow himself to be prevented from lifting a rock?"

in response to your post though, if the parents and the state decide to teach creationism then I suppose they should,

Except, of course, for this pesky little thing called the 1st Amendment.....

The only options available to the government are to teach every single possible religion with equal time given to each, or to teach no religion at all. The second seems more plausible.

What about the issue of darwinism being forced on our youth?

There is no such thing as "darwinism". Now, as for evolutionary theory being taught in a science class - it is really no different from any other theory being taught in a science class. We are teaching the most supported scientific theory on a subject. No one is asking students to believe in it. In fact, having "belief" is really altogether the wrong way to go about science.

The laws of science are still the same. Theories though, are a different matter entirely.

I am certain that someone else has already pointed this out, but just to drive it home (since it is something that anyone with even a middle school education should know):

Laws in science are still theories! Laws are simply theories with so much support and on which so much further science is based that they are considered as close to fact as possible. Of course, considering that "laws" in the past have been disproven (ie. Newton's Laws), scientists tend to shy away from giving anything new that title these days.

No one can prove that there is or isn't a God.

No, they can't, which is exactly why God has no place whatsoever in science, either as an existenty entity, or a non-existent one.

They should have them there now. There has been more proof for Intelligent Design than anything else.

A bold assertion. Care to back it up? Probably not. As I read through the rest of this thread, I'll look for it though, just in case....

Of course, since, as you said, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God (since, you know, one cannot gather empirical evidence relating to God), the idea of there being any evidence at all for Intelligent Design is laughable...

Are we talking about Newton's LAWS of motion

You mean the ones that were disproven by the theory of relativity, as they were simply theories in and of themselves?

or the LAW of universal gravity?

You mean the theory which, at the moment, bears several hypotheses that have not yet been tested, such as the existence of the graviton?

Except, of course, for this pesky little thing called the 1st Amendment.....

The only options available to the government are to teach every single possible religion with equal time given to each, or to teach no religion at all. The second seems more plausible.
true, and believe me I am not for any religion being taught in school at all, I know that ID and Creationism aren't science, and I don't want them presented as science to my kids. My point (although I made it a little later, and maybe not as clear as possible) is that in America if you don't like what is being done at your local public school you have a right to protest, face it majority rules in America, constitution or not. If you don't like it then do something about it instead of whining about "how to save the world from creationists"

I have actually studied science. I have also study Astronomy. I got mostly B's in my the physics classes that I have had and passed every test in regards to Newton.

I still continue to study physics on and off since it does deal with Meteorology.

Please tell me where you went to school where they give B's to people who don't even understand the science taught in the first chapter of a middle school science book, so I can be sure never to send my kids there.

Sorry but alot of those tax empt people do a ton of charity work. And then we go back to what I said orginially. It'll be political suicide to do what you are suggesting and the Courts will more than likely rule that it is unconstitutional.

You are aware that there are already laws that work this way? And no one has freaked out?

Look up the various groups run by James Dobson. Some of them do charity work, evangelical stuff, etc, and are therefore tax exempt. Others are dedicated to political tasks - lobbying and the like - and are therefore not tax exempt.

All a church that wants to get involved in politics has to do is set up a separate entity (it isn't hard at all), with separate contributions made specifically by parishioners who want their money going into political lobbying. The rest of the church stuff is still tax exempt, and this separate entity (still run by the church) that does political wrangling is not.

If you think gravity and Newtonian physics are universal and apply at all levels then you should study more. Newtonian physics may get into all the good VIP rooms at a macro level, but on a quantum level Newtonian physics is rejected by the bouncer for wearing white sox with black shoes.

Indeed. Even on the macro level, Newtonian physics introduces error. The factors taken into account in quantum mechanics still affect things at the quantum level, just not to a degree that causes enough error to worry about. We could use quantum mechanics to describe the macro level as well, but it's a hell of a lot of work to go through when we can get a close enough answer with the much simpler Newtonian method.

It's a bit like assuming a frictionless pully. Yeah, we know that there is no such thing - any pully we make has friction, but sometimes the friction really doesn't matter in the calculation - the error is so far out in the decimal places we just don't care. The same with Newtonian physics (which is why it seemed to work so well until we started trying to apply it at the quantum level).

Indeed. Even on the macro level, Newtonian physics introduces error. The factors taken into account in quantum mechanics still affect things at the quantum level, just not to a degree that causes enough error to worry about. We could use quantum mechanics to describe the macro level as well, but it's a hell of a lot of work to go through when we can get a close enough answer with the much simpler Newtonian method.

It's a bit like assuming a frictionless pully. Yeah, we know that there is no such thing - any pully we make has friction, but sometimes the friction really doesn't matter in the calculation - the error is so far out in the decimal places we just don't care. The same with Newtonian physics (which is why it seemed to work so well until we started trying to apply it at the quantum level).
Great analogy lol reminds me of my phisics days lol

true, and believe me I am not for any religion being taught in school at all, I know that ID and Creationism aren't science, and I don't want them presented as science to my kids. My point (although I made it a little later, and maybe not as clear as possible) is that in America if you don't like what is being done at your local public school you have a right to protest, face it majority rules in America, constitution or not. If you don't like it then do something about it instead of whining about "how to save the world from creationists"
Is not their protesting a form of "whining about how to save the world from evolutionists"? if so it seems fitting for a return volly

You crazy fool. Let me give you a view into the mind of this particular breed of "Science-lover":

Hello, I'm a Creationist "science-lover." In my mind, "embracing science" and "loving science" refer to "really liking when science confirms the opinions I've already decided to hold." When science stubbornly insists that I'm mistaken, obviously science must be in the wrong. I believe that it's nice to live past the age of 25, so I love that science has provided me with the comforts and protections of modern medicine. However, I dislike the idea of evolution because it conflicts with my personal opinions, so it's mean of science to accumulate a pile of evidence showing my opinion to be inconsistent with reality.

Wow, that sounds almost exactly like the preface to the "science" book being used by that high school in California that feels that their students are being "discriminated against" when universities won't accept their science class!

That doesn't sound like the same thing at all. Whether or not you WILL do something is quite different from whether or not you CAN do that thing.

For me, yeah.

For an omnipotent being that can (by virtue of being omnipotent) place limits upon its own power, they really are the same thing.

Similarly, God could choose not to lift a particular rock, but that wouldn't be the same as a situation in which he COULD NOT lift that rock.

God could choose to limit God in such a way that God COULD NOT lift that rock. Why? God is omnipotent, and can thus place such limits.

In other words, the omnipotent God could create a situation in which there was a rock that He was prevented from lifting. However, the only thing preventing Him from lifting the rock would be His own will,

I don't think you can place the word "only" on the will of an omnipotent being. It's a bit like saying, "It's only infinity."

It's like how I can lift my chair, but I can also elect to pick up so many freeweights that I would not be able to pick up the chair in addition to those burdens...I still have the innate ability to lift the chair, all I've got to do is put down the weights I've decided to pick up. Nothing about my innate ability has changed, nor has any quality of the chair, I've just chosen to create a special situation in which my ability to lift the chair is restricted.

The difference being, of course, that you are not omnipotent (as far as I know).

Is not their protesting a form of "whining about how to save the world from evolutionists"? if so it seems fitting for a return volly
sure. I don't like whiners period. I am getting pretty tired of it to tell you the truth. I had to tell someone this evening IRL to either shut up or grow up and get over it.

she replies "I can't get over it"

and I said "then shut up"

not nice, but I mean really how long am I supposed to listen to someone whine about things that they want changed that they have control over. I wish both sides would just give up. You aren't going to convince anyone, isn't it okay for you to believe what you believe and them to believe what they do?

Creationism isn't science.
Science has nothing to do with God.
They aren't even in the same ballpark together so why argue one against the other?

This is easy.

An omnipotent being can do anything, right? Thus, an omnipotent being could place limits upon its power. Those limits are not absolute, as it could also decide at any time to remove the limits.

It goes back to questions like, "Could God create a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it?" The logical answer is, of course, "Yes." However, that limit would be placed by God, and God could then lift the limitation, and then be able to lift it.

Human beings do this as well, in a limited sense. If I got angry enough that I wanted someone dead, I could go and kill them. It might even make me happy. However, I have limited myself by stating that I won't kill someone. Therefore, I'm not going to do it. I would really like some ice cream right now. There is some in the freezer. I could go get it. However, I am limiting my desserts, so I'm not going to go get it - I have placed that limitation upon myself.
Upward Thurst, if you're still keeping track, this would be one to save.

Upward Thurst, if you're still keeping track, this would be one to save.
Done and done :) thank you I would have missed that one

Done and done :) thank you I would have missed that one

What are you saving?

What are you saving?
Good theistic arguements on all sides
And or explinations

Everything from omni-potence of god to you name it if I run across something that seems to boil down the point really really good it gets bookmarked

For my own and to use later (mostly for my own knoledge) wilimina just happened to know I did that :)

Good theistic arguements on all sides
And or explinations

Everything from omni-potence of god to you name it if I run across something that seems to boil down the point really really good it gets bookmarked

For my own and to use later (mostly for my own knoledge) wilimina just happened to know I did that :)

Have I ever made the list? You knew that was the next question.

That, my friend, is your right.. and I'd defend it to the death.

However, that doesn't make you right, and 'evolution' wrong.

It doesn't make me wrong either.

In fact, having seen the wealth of arguments presented FOR evolution, and the masses of evidence to support it - and contrasting that with... well, what you've got... I'm sticking with 'evolution', for the time being.

There's also more scientific evidence proving Intelligent Design.

It doesn't make me wrong either.



There's also more scientific evidence proving Intelligent Design.

We're waiting for that evidence. If you wish to SHOW you are scientific present us with the natural phenomena that rejects evolution and how the hypothesis you present is the SIMPLIST possible explanation of that phenomena. Then you have to show it is falsifiable. Then we'll discuss how might test such a theory. You've offered nothing other than "ID is a great theory with tons of evidence". Strangely, I have never seen ID in a scientific journal other than articles showing why it is unscientific.

Have I ever made the list? You knew that was the next question.
Pretty sure yeah my main collection is on my work computer and I am home now

But I forget to bookmark good ones lots of times and have to hunt for them later ... :) wilimena sometimes has to kick me for me to remember it lol

Pretty sure yeah my main collection is on my work computer and I am home now

But I forget to bookmark good ones lots of times and have to hunt for them later ... :) wilimena sometimes has to kick me for me to remember it lol

I have only made two arguments I really liked about theism. One is the argument about color versus black and white and the other is the argument about the ability to read.

Good theistic arguements on all sides
And or explinations

Everything from omni-potence of god to you name it if I run across something that seems to boil down the point really really good it gets bookmarked

For my own and to use later (mostly for my own knoledge) wilimina just happened to know I did that :)
I have a new goal in life now, to be 'saved'

I am going to have to start thinking now right?

Have I ever made the list? You knew that was the next question.
No, only immodest people make the list.

just kidding

I have a new goal in life now, to be 'saved'
Wait a minute... aren't you a Christian?

In other words, the omnipotent God could create a situation in which there was a rock that He was prevented from lifting. However, the only thing preventing Him from lifting the rock would be His own will, and therefore He still would have the innate ability to lift the rock whenever He wanted to. It's like how I can lift my chair, but I can also elect to pick up so many freeweights that I would not be able to pick up the chair in addition to those burdens...I still have the innate ability to lift the chair, all I've got to do is put down the weights I've decided to pick up. Nothing about my innate ability has changed, nor has any quality of the chair, I've just chosen to create a special situation in which my ability to lift the chair is restricted. The original question was, "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?" but you have answered "Can God create a situation in which He would allow himself to be prevented from lifting a rock?"

Exactly, that's the logical falicy of the "God can't be omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock he cannot lift" argument.

I have only made two arguments I really liked about theism. One is the argument about color versus black and white and the other is the argument about the ability to read.
Tell you what message me the links I would be most happy to add them :)

Tell you what message me the links I would be most happy to add them :)
That's the ticket! Why should you do all the work?
:)

You can't force a theory down anyone's throat. If a school wants to teach both sides they should be able to. Now I don't think that only one side should be taught, school kids are smart people, they would be able to make up their own minds. Give them the information, and they can take with it what they will.

The UN should not be teaching beliefs. They should teach how to survive and better oneself to poor nations, and poorer children in those nations, not theories of science to school children. The UN has better things it should eb trying to do rather than try to push on theory over the other.

Wait a minute... aren't you a Christian?
I am. why?

That's the ticket! Why should you do all the work?
:)
Hey if it was in the thread and I missed it being pointed to it is enough but I have NO idea where thoes good argumments he likes are located lol

:) not so much lazy as intrested

There's also more scientific evidence proving Intelligent Design.

By your own admission, there can't possibly be any evidence "proving" Intelligent Design. In order to posit a designer, one must posit (and be able to test for, if we are talking science here) an Intelligent Deisgner (aka God). As you have already admitted, science cannot test for or find empirical evidence for God. Therefore, it is impossible to find evidence of the Intelligent Designer. Therefore, it is impossible to find evidence for Intelligent Design.

You can't force a theory down anyone's throat. If a school wants to teach both sides they should be able to. Now I don't think that only one side should be taught, school kids are smart people, they would be able to make up their own minds. Give them the information, and they can take with it what they will.

We aren't talking about an argument with "sides". We are talking about science. You either follow the scientific method, or you don't. Scientists do, and from that method, evolutionary theory has developed. Theologists and other types of philosophers do not, and they have devised Creationism and Intelligent Design. However, since these ideas were not arrived at (and, in fact, by definition, cannot be arrived at) using the scientific method, they cannot be taught alongside scientific theories, any more than we teach that 7, 3, and 12 are holy numbers in our mathematics classes.

...they cannot be taught alongside scientific theories, any more than we teach that 7, 3, and 12 are holy numbers in our mathematics classes.
If you'd said 7, 3 and 13 I'd have protested that they are holy. They are prime numbers.

If you'd said 7, 3 and 13 I'd have protested that they are holy. They are prime numbers.

:D

*hugs*

Hey if it was in the thread and I missed it being pointed to it is enough but I have NO idea where thoes good argumments he likes are located lol

:) not so much lazy as intrested

They weren't this thread, but I searched them out since you're interested.

The first was to show how God being unbound by time, yet capable of entering a time-bound world is not illogical (as the poster I was replying to was arguing).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9407684&postcount=1849

I can't search out the other one right now because Jolt sucks.

They weren't this thread, but I searched them out since you're interested.

The first was to show how God being unbound by time, yet capable of entering a time-bound world is not illogical (as the poster I was replying to was arguing).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9407684&postcount=1849

I can't search out the other one right now because Jolt sucks.

Good analogy!

They weren't this thread, but I searched them out since you're interested.

The first was to show how God being unbound by time, yet capable of entering a time-bound world is not illogical (as the poster I was replying to was arguing).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9407684&postcount=1849

I can't search out the other one right now because Jolt sucks.
No offense, but that's not a savable post.

- ...no evidence on which to base any rules on the ability or disability of a being unbound by the laws in which we reside.
That's actually just an argument in favour of a dimension of reality or the universe that we cannot experience. And it is over-simplified; your retro-experienced dimension does not actually reflect any dimension of reality or the universe that is "not experiencable". We don't actually "have" these extra dimensions that you speak of; we only have the ones we have the language to talk about.