NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow... When did Generalite Mafia come about? :confused:

Last summer.

Wow... When did Generalite Mafia come about? :confused:

All the cool kids have been doing it forever.

:D

That explains why I missed it...

Welcome to NSG :)

thanks. :) ...i did actually make one earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13245852&postcount=1394) recommending Kitcher's Living with Darwin -- it's a good read, well-reasoned, and imo he's pretty charitable to 'creation science'/ID. As in, he treats it seriously, for the claims that it makes. (Then argues why the scientists who believed its various forms became convinced it was wrong.)

...but only one person seemed to notice. I think others were enjoying the quarrels too much. :p

All the cool kids have been doing it forever.

:DYeah, well, I stopped being a kid with twenty ;)

Wow... When did Generalite Mafia come about? :confused:

May, I think.

Are we sticking a fork in this thread?

Aaaand - back on topic.
Which needs more pictures.

http://cectic.com/comics/019.png
http://cectic.com/019.html

I've been lurking in this thread for a while, and had to post this when I read it. It's a great parody of some christians:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well-groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first.

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh, yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well, no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of Karl" letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

1. Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't drink.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says, 'Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says, 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says, 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says, 'Eat right,' and item 8 says, 'wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says, 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says, 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying, 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes.

John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken.

John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears:

Mary: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her.

John: "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

The end

I've been lurking in this thread for a while, and had to post this when I read it. It's a great parody of some christians::D :D :D
Oh boy, I would put that in my sig :D :D :D

:D :D :D
Oh boy, I would put that in my sig :D :D :D

Beat you to it, back when it was posted (over a week ago)

Beat you to it, back when it was posted (over a week ago)

I had it in my sig well over a year ago ...
Thats been around teh interwebs for years

Yah is not automatically Yahweh. Yah is the deity known to the Sumerians as Enki, to the Akkadians and subsequent Mesopotamians as Ia/Ea (pronounced something like Eyá). And there is a major conceptional difference between Yah worship of Hebrews and Israelites and the later Yahweh worship of Jews. The Jewish Yahweh is an amalgam of quite a number of deities (such as Enki/Yah, Enlil, Elohim, Asherah, Marduk/Baal/Set) while the much older Yah is not.

First of all, "Jehu" and "Hezekiah" are merely the transliterations in English. "Hezekiah", for example, is written in Akkadian with his name ending in "-yahu" (YHW, which, to my understanding of Hebrew (I don't speak it), cannot be completed in any other form than "YHWH", at least inside a name). Secondly, references to "YHWH" (in Hebrew) exist well before the Babylonian Captivity (e.g., the Mesha Stele (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha Stele)).

Now, I don't doubt that modern Judaism proper had its foundations after the Babylonian Captivity, which is when a concerted effort was made to write down the oral traditions of the Jews so at least their memory could continue onwards in history (if they didn't). I also don't doubt that Yahweh had to come from somewhere- all religions do- and the idea of "Yam" (which has been associated with "Yah" due to the similarities) makes sense to me (after reading up on it). Considering Israelite tradition holds that they replaced the Caananites as the dominant force in Palestine, Yam is the "evil" god in the Caananite pantheon, Yam is the god of the river and the Jordan River was the main river needed for irrigation (and thus farming) it's probably no coincidence that "Yam" became adopted by the Israelites (indeed, the Old Testament has a very "fiery" depiction of YHWH- consistent with the "chaotic" Yam), where he was probably "mellowed" so that he could be viewed as a "good god worth worshipping". The archeological record does suggest that it took a while for the Yahwistic religion (at least in its early form)- the first king of Israel to have a Yahwistic name is Jehu (that we know of anyway- the Mesha Stele recounts a son of Omri (the first listed king of Israel in extra-Biblical sources) but does not name him, and Ahab also comes before Jehu). So it certainly seems that Yahweh took a while to get firmly established- however, "YHWH" did exist before Babylon took over.

Aaaand - back on topic.
Which needs more pictures.

http://cectic.com/comics/019.png
http://cectic.com/019.html

The only thing that irritates me about this is that panel 4 has precious little nature in it...

The only thing that irritates me about this is that panel 4 has precious little nature in it...

It has purple. Purple is a fruit.

The only thing that irritates me about this is that panel 4 has precious little nature in it...

I think their also trying to make a little bit fun of physicists, but i could be entirely wrong of course...

The only thing that irritates me about this is that panel 4 has precious little nature in it...

The equipment certainly isn't "natural" but the discoveries being made are tied to the natural world and physical processes in it.

Incidentally I get into these sorts of "natural science vs. high-tech theoretical science" discussions with my advisor all the time.

I think their also trying to make a little bit fun of physicists, but i could be entirely wrong of course...

The equipment certainly isn't "natural" but the discoveries being made are tied to the natural world and physical processes in it.

Incidentally I get into these sorts of "natural science vs. high-tech theoretical science" discussions with my advisor all the time.

Well, it struck me as "I worship nature, so I spend all my time indoors studying machinery" which I found both sad and amusing at the same time.

and for your reading pleasure...

MR SCIENCEY!

<snip image>
Shouldn't that be "smitten"? :confused:

and for your reading pleasure...

MR SCIENCEY!

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-11-29.gif

Well, it struck me as "I worship nature, so I spend all my time indoors studying machinery" which I found both sad and amusing at the same time.

But quite accurate. The whole "living nature" thing is for biologists.
The underlying nature of things, atoms and deeper, is physics. And fascinating :)
To post more comic:

http://cectic.com/comics/036.png

But quite accurate. The whole "living nature" thing is for biologists.
The underlying nature of things, atoms and deeper, is physics. And fascinating :)
To post more comic:

http://cectic.com/comics/036.png

Hehe. The middle panel on the bottom is from star trek TNG.

Also: fascinating, but frequently a pain in the ass.

:eek: oh now you're antisemitic...

LOL

First of all, "Jehu" and "Hezekiah" are merely the transliterations in English. "Hezekiah", for example, is written in Akkadian with his name ending in "-yahu" (YHW, which, to my understanding of Hebrew (I don't speak it), cannot be completed in any other form than "YHWH", at least inside a name). Secondly, references to "YHWH" (in Hebrew) exist well before the Babylonian Captivity (e.g., the Mesha Stele (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha Stele)).Now, that's truly interesting. Is it certain that this is the monotheos Yhwh of Judaism?

Now, I don't doubt that modern Judaism proper had its foundations after the Babylonian Captivity, which is when a concerted effort was made to write down the oral traditions of the Jews so at least their memory could continue onwards in history (if they didn't). I also don't doubt that Yahweh had to come from somewhere- all religions do- and the idea of "Yam" (which has been associated with "Yah" due to the similarities) makes sense to me (after reading up on it). Considering Israelite tradition holds that they replaced the Caananites as the dominant force in Palestine, Yam is the "evil" god in the Caananite pantheon, Yam is the god of the river and the Jordan River was the main river needed for irrigation (and thus farming) it's probably no coincidence that "Yam" became adopted by the Israelites (indeed, the Old Testament has a very "fiery" depiction of YHWH- consistent with the "chaotic" Yam), where he was probably "mellowed" so that he could be viewed as a "good god worth worshipping". The archeological record does suggest that it took a while for the Yahwistic religion (at least in its early form)- the first king of Israel to have a Yahwistic name is Jehu (that we know of anyway- the Mesha Stele recounts a son of Omri (the first listed king of Israel in extra-Biblical sources) but does not name him, and Ahab also comes before Jehu). So it certainly seems that Yahweh took a while to get firmly established- however, "YHWH" did exist before Babylon took over.Why use Yam when there is already a well-known Yah around?

It has purple. Purple is a fruit.Isn't purple made out of snails?

Isn't purple made out of snails?

No, I think you are thinking of confusion.

No, I think you are thinking of confusion.

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

Now, that's truly interesting. Is it certain that this is the monotheos Yhwh of Judaism?

Well, the only proof of that would be the Bible. Archeologically speaking, there's no record that says the pre-Babylonian Captivity Hebrews worshipped *only* YHWH. I suspect they didn't- if the Bible lists stories about the Hebrews worshipping idols and having a battle with Ba'al (which, strangely enough, is also recounted in the stories of Yam), then YHWH might *not* have been the sole Hebrew god.

You know, it's interesting just how little information there is about ancient Israel and Judah there is outside of the Bible. As far as I can tell, extra-Biblically, there's little that can be said about Israel and Judah outside of its king list, maybe how much territory they had (and how populous they were) and the extent of Palestinian foreign relations (economic and otherwise). There's nothing written concerning social practices (including slavery and, maybe more revealingly, religion) and, to my understanding, no "set of laws" have managed to survive in the archeological records. Granted, maybe there's some stuff recently discovered that I'm not aware of (I'm referencing back to a University course I did three years ago), but I don't suspect the scholarly consensus of the archeological record has changed much.

Why use Yam when there is already a well-known Yah around?

Enki would make sense, yes, but I like the idea of turning "Yam" into "Yahweh" better myself- the Old Testament seems to characterize Yahweh as a fire-and-brimstone kind of god, the god who demands devotion and powerfully smites anyone who does not follow him. Enki is more of a compassionate, "helpful" god and that doesn't fit well with the Yahweh depiction- he is, if you will, "too nice" for that position. Plus I feel that the Israelites intended to position themselves as enemies of the Caananites, and what better way of doing that than "adopting" (and altering) Yam? I realize it's a minority position among scholars but if you ask me, "Yam---->Yahweh" makes more sense to me than "Enki/Ea---->Yahweh".

Mattorn;13253292']This might seem like a weird concept, but I think that in this case it would be more prudent to lean toward the Bible's account rather than your suspicions. *evil eyebrow* :p

And this topic has appeared over and over and over and over and over again. Why must it be posted again? How many times is enough?

if the reason "This topic has been posted before" was a valid reason on not starting a thread...


this would be a pretty empty board. :D

Well, the only proof of that would be the Bible. Archeologically speaking, there's no record that says the pre-Babylonian Captivity Hebrews worshipped *only* YHWH. I suspect they didn't- if the Bible lists stories about the Hebrews worshipping idols and having a battle with Ba'al (which, strangely enough, is also recounted in the stories of Yam), then YHWH might *not* have been the sole Hebrew god.
This might seem like a weird concept, but I think that in this case it would be more prudent to lean toward the Bible's account rather than your suspicions. *evil eyebrow* :p

And this topic has appeared over and over and over and over and over again. Why must it be posted again? How many times is enough?

Now, that's truly interesting. Is it certain that this is the monotheos Yhwh of Judaism?

Why use Yam when there is already a well-known Yah around?

Because that's how religion works.

The delicious irony of religion evolving is a simple pleasure, but so much fun.

Religions operate on two main principles - clearly separating the god(s) from the god(s) of (an)other religion(s), and then assimilating the characteristics of those other religions.

Both are survival characteristics of the religion (some would say, of the meme).

Well, the only proof of that would be the Bible. Archeologically speaking, there's no record that says the pre-Babylonian Captivity Hebrews worshipped *only* YHWH. I suspect they didn't- if the Bible lists stories about the Hebrews worshipping idols and having a battle with Ba'al (which, strangely enough, is also recounted in the stories of Yam), then YHWH might *not* have been the sole Hebrew god.

you know, it actually seems somewhat rare for the hebrews to be active monotheists in the bible. they seem to mainly be hanging around in the bible so that various priests and prophets can yell at them for being polytheists.

Mattorn;13253292']This might seem like a weird concept, but I think that in this case it would be more prudent to lean toward the Bible's account rather than your suspicions. *evil eyebrow* :p

And this topic has appeared over and over and over and over and over again. Why must it be posted again? How many times is enough?

Well, I won't completely discredit the Bible's historical significance- considering that quite a bit of the Biblical story is corroborated elsewhere (Hezekiah did, in fact, battle Sennacherib, for example), it's possible that the Old Testament is based (at least partly) on real history. However, it is prudent, every now and then, to examine Israel extra-Biblically (as I did for a University course), if only because the Bible's revered status can "cloud" its story somewhat.

As far as YHWH is concerned- even in the Bible there contains stories of how the Israelites turned to other gods (the episode where Elijah prayed to God asking Him to burn a sacrifical lamb (which He did) after the Ba'al priests failed to get their god to do so comes to mind), so, yes, it's possible (and probable) that YHWH wasn't the *sole* Israelite god. Maybe he was the *main* one but not the *sole* one- my suspicion is that aspect came out after the Babylonian Captivity, where the Jews might have realized that worshipping several gods might have gotten them in trouble and went about eradicating the rest from their pantheon. I certainly believe that there probably were many Israelite gods at some point, if only because those other gods (such as Ba'al) were named- no other religious story (or at least none that I've come across) detail stories of peoples who have "strayed" from the chief god and worshipped other "independent", recognizable gods (and actually naming those gods), and for the religious story to pan such straying, there had to have been a point where Israelites came together and said "enough's enough! We've got to change things!"; and that point was probably the Babylonian Captivity, an event that threatened the very existence of the Hebrews as a distinct people which would stir such feelings.

... the Babylonian Captivity, an event that threatened the very existence of the Hebrews as a distinct people which would stir such feelings.Hebrews were in no danger. Israelites were.

Hey. I'm all for having the kids open to different things, but in science class they shouldn't be taught about creationism, they should be taught what is true instead. Sad thing, having fairy tales in science books.

I think we need to pass a law requiring that a special disclaimer be read before each and every bible class, stating that it is an unproveable theory, and that more probable explanations exist in the realm of science.

Originally Posted by ASXTC
I cannot believe that creationism is still taught in American schools.

It isn't, at least not in public schools. There are those trying to force it into public schools, but it is not currently taught.

I stand corrected after delving further into the statement i made.

I stand corrected after delving further into the statement i made.

What an unnecessary gravedig.

Hmmmm?

Is it really wrong to gravedig to admit a correction in thought?

NO NO NO

It'd turn Science classes into a Creation vs Evolution debate and kids are there to learn. Creationism should be it's own class and kids can go there if they want. The same people who push Creationism used to think the world was square and world revolved around the earth.

Hmmmm?

Is it really wrong to gravedig to admit a correction in thought?

Did it add something new to the discussion? I don't think so.

Did it add something new to the discussion? I don't think so.

You have to admit however it's a surprise to read a confession of being wrong.

NO NO NO

It'd turn Science classes into a Creation vs Evolution debate and kids are there to learn. Creationism should be it's own class and kids can go there if they want. The same people who push Creatism used to think the world was square and world revolved around the earth.

Debates usually require two sides. Sadly one side is underequipped to deal with the other side through scientific means. I would call what would happen more as a shouting match.

Did it add something new to the discussion? I don't think so.

You have to admit however it's a surprise to read a confession of being wrong.

IIRC, the rules state that gravedigging is fine if it adds something of relevance (aka not spam)

You have to admit however it's a surprise to read a confession of being wrong.

Oh yes. Not something one often sees on NSG. Especially not in creationism threads.

Click Stand;13361986']Debates usually require two sides. Sadly one side is underequipped to deal with the other side through scientific means. I would call what woould happen more as a shouting match.

Pretty much. I'd like to say that one side doesn't resort to shouting, but I'm sure I'd find that to be false if I re-read this thread.

Click Stand;13361986']Debates usually require two sides. Sadly one side is underequipped to deal with the other side through scientific means. I would call what woould happen more as a shouting match.

Ya, my personal opinion is there is God but Evolution is his computer programming via DNA to allow his creations to live on so he does not have to supervise the entire process. Looks like there's some errors and bugs in the programming too but ...

Keep them seperate as putting Creationism into Science would not be any benefit to both camps.

I really have no problem with Creationism or Evolution, but I believe more in evolution.

I really have no problem with Creationism or Evolution, but I believe more in evolution.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.

So you'd rather believe a 'God' did it!?! Talk about intellectual self-defeat...

Yes sure, let's teach alternate history as well, where Napoleon conquered the globe! Yes, this is school, where we should teach new ideas.

Do you know what a retarded excuse to insert creationism into the science class is?

Seriously, school is about learning fact, not fiction.

So you'd rather believe a 'God' did it!?! Talk about intellectual self-defeat...

I never suggested anything of the sort. My point was that evolution has nothing to do with how life, or the universe, came to be. And it doesn't. As such it does not necessarily disprove the idea of a god or gods creating the universe or creating life, depending on when god/gods allegedly created life on this planet and in what form it was created.

I never suggested anything of the sort. My point was that evolution has nothing to do with how life, or the universe, came to be. And it doesn't. As such it does not necessarily disprove the idea of a god or gods creating the universe or creating life, depending on when god/gods allegedly created life on this planet and in what form it was created.
I've seen this logic before, and I know where it leads. Once upon a time we thought the world was flat, our beliefs thus we formed by our lack of knowledge, and the 'gaps' of reality were filled in by the spiritual. Our time has progressed the scientific and rational have replaced the irrational primitive aspects of our beginning when we had such a short life expectancy etc. My point is that even though science hasn't completely proven the creation of the universe, given evolution, microbiology and other scientific advances eventually even this will be proven logically in scientific terms. Just because we don't know now how the universe began, I know the temptation to do the intellectual equivalent of 'I give up' and say 'God did it' is big, but we must resist it. Remember people, we now longer worship fire.

I've seen this logic before, and I know where it leads.
Where it leads? I'm certainly not leading it anywhere.
Once upon a time we thought the world was flat, our beliefs thus we formed by our lack of knowledge, and the 'gaps' of reality were filled in by the spiritual. Our time has progressed the scientific and rational have replaced the irrational primitive aspects of our beginning when we had such a short life expectancy etc. My point is that even though science has completely proven the creation of the universe
Has it? See I find that very unlikely since science never proves anything. Proof is for maths and alcohol.
, given evolution, microbiology and other scientific advances eventually even this will be proven logically in scientific terms. Just because we don't know now how the universe began, I know the temptation to do the intellectual equivolent of 'I give up'

Oh, I see your problem. You think that just because I pointed out that evolution doesn't contradict certain forms of creationism I must believe in one of those forms of creationism. I don't.

Did it add something new to the discussion? I don't think so.
I think it did that is why i submitted it. If anyone else (like i ) was still under the impression that some state schools in the US had creationism on the curriculum, my post hopefully added to thier knowledge of the subject.

If you read further into the ongoing debate of creationism in schools you might find that it is, in some states, being pushed quite heavily and that some school boards have indeed voted to include it (either the GAP or Intelligent Design variants)....and then been forced to retract through parent pressure or court legislation.

In my honest opinion...anyone that advocates creationism (any variety) and really believes the answers it gives to many questions...needs to be comitted.

Yet another example of how "religious" zealots try to force thier twisted and falsified "truths" on mainstay society.

Yet another example of how "religious" zealots try to force thier twisted and falsified "truths" on mainstay society.

Falsified?

So how do you test for the existence or non-existence of a god?

I honestly do not believe that creationism should be taught in science as it is a philosophy. To scientifically prove that something exists, you need to be able to test your theory. Otherwise, it is just a philosophy.

Therefore if you want to teach a philosophy, then fine, just teach it in Religious Studies or Philosophy class. Otherwise, it should not be on the science curriculum.

So how do you test for the existence or non-existence of a god?
You don't need to, in order to disprove Creationist claims. Every single time a Creationist has set forth a falsifiable statement about their "theory," it has been falsified. The only way they perpetuate their ideology is by making sure that they never give any specifics at all. They just say, "Um, God did it, a long time ago, and we can't know how because He's magic."

You don't need to, in order to disprove Creationist claims. Every single time a Creationist has tried to make a concrete statement about their "theory," it has been demolished. The only way they perpetuate their ideology is by making sure that they never give any specifics at all. They just say, "Um, God did it, a long time ago, and we can't know how because He's magic."

I blame a lack of coffee.

You are right. When I read the post I took it to mean Religion in general instead of creationism.

Comment withdrawn.

*pout*

You're no fun. You're supposed to say, "NUH UH AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, BOTTLE!"

And then I say, "YEAH-HUH, AND I AM NOT, EITHER!"

And then one of the sane people on the forum comes in and says, "SETTLE DOWN KIDS OR I'M GONNA PULL THIS THREAD OVER RIGHT NOW."

"SETTLE DOWN OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE REINCARNATED AS A CARROT."

...Hindus suck at fire and brimstone :(

I blame a lack of coffee.

You are right. When I read the post I took it to mean Religion in general instead of creationism.

Comment withdrawn.
*pout*

You're no fun. You're supposed to say, "NUH UH AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, BOTTLE!"

And then I say, "YEAH-HUH, AND I AM NOT, EITHER!"

And then one of the sane people on the forum comes in and says, "SETTLE DOWN KIDS OR I'M GONNA PULL THIS THREAD OVER RIGHT NOW."

I'm a Christian and I support Evolution. Creationism started at a time when people explained the origin of the world best they could. However, I do believe that God arranged the process of evolution to have precise results in some way or other. I also believe that although science can take us as far back as the beginning of the universe, the fact that it just "appeared" from an infinitely small "nothing" full of everything to create everything and suddenly began expanding out and out is, in my opinion a work of God.

I'm a Christian and I support Evolution.

Everybody who is not entirely insane supports evolution - that that occurs is an indisputable fact after all. Unless you believe you are an exact genetic duplicate of one of your parents ;) ?

What people - including you - debate is the theory of evolution through natural selection, which is a comprehensive scientific theory that tries to both explain the consequences of evolution as well as describe a mechanism that in a sense "controls" those consequences based on observed fact.

Everybody who is not entirely insane supports evolution - that that occurs is an indisputable fact after all. Unless you believe you are an exact genetic duplicate of one of your parents ;) ?

What people - including you - debate is the theory of evolution through natural selection, which is a comprehensive scientific theory that tries to both explain the consequences of evolution as well as describe a mechanism that in a sense "controls" those consequences based on observed fact.

though it must be admitted that while the non-insane can dispute the theory of evolution, it does require that you be either ignorant or selling something to do so.

Creationism started at a time when people explained the origin of the world best they could.

actually, creationism got its start as a response to the development of the theory of evolution, the rise of modernism, and increasing liberalism in the church. it was and is explicitly built upon the rejection of all that.

Hebrews were in no danger. Israelites were.

This thread had been dead for a month. Why did you raise it from it's grave to feast on the posts of the living?

*pout*

You're no fun. You're supposed to say, "NUH UH AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, BOTTLE!"

And then I say, "YEAH-HUH, AND I AM NOT, EITHER!"

And then one of the sane people on the forum comes in and says, "SETTLE DOWN KIDS OR I'M GONNA PULL THIS THREAD OVER RIGHT NOW."

YOU ARE A DOODY HEAD!


Sometimes I wonder if we should give up the fight?

Right now my kids school thinks that an 8 day camp which you pay for is how you teach children science.

It's scary. They get 1/2 hour a month for music. Art is volunteers and if they don't have any or the supplies, it doesn't happen. Science is by the camp and now they are talking about abolishing PE.

So we are going to have a generation of uncreative overweight kids......


But the test scores are improving! YEA for rote learning! :(

This thread had been dead for a month. Why did you raise it from it's grave to feast on the posts of the living?

despite UB's many faults, this is not one of them

despite UB's many faults, this is not one of them

Last post before his was dated as being from the end of November, his was dated this January. Sounds to me like he raised a thread from one month dead. More curious as to why than anything.

YOU ARE A DOODY HEAD!


Sometimes I wonder if we should give up the fight?

Right now my kids school thinks that an 8 day camp which you pay for is how you teach children science.

It's scary. They get 1/2 hour a month for music. Art is volunteers and if they don't have any or the supplies, it doesn't happen. Science is by the camp and now they are talking about abolishing PE.

So we are going to have a generation of uncreative overweight kids......


But the test scores are improving! YEA for rote learning! :(
Good, I hate creative children. They're so annoying. Why do you think WS Gilbert wrote this little lyric back in the 19th century:

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs--
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs--
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat--

But really, public education these days does seem to come down to the Tests, doesn't it? I hate to think that the NCLBA has wiped out learning for its own sake, but it appears to be wellon the way.

Last post before his was dated as being from the end of November, his was dated this January. Sounds to me like he raised a thread from one month dead. More curious as to why than anything.

We need a good evolution thread around. We have politics, religion, we need one of these, too.

actually, creationism got its start as a response to the development of the theory of evolution, the rise of modernism, and increasing liberalism in the church. it was and is explicitly built upon the rejection of all that.

Do you have a source for this?

Last post before his was dated as being from the end of November, his was dated this January. Sounds to me like he raised a thread from one month dead. More curious as to why than anything.

actually, it's dated december 1st. if it was january, it would be jolt's greatest timewarp, since it would be jan 12th, 2007.

Do you have a source for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

So you were specifcally discussing the creationist movement of US Xian fundamentalists from the 1920's on, rather than the belief itself.

Which is odd, because the post you quoted from Auevia was specifically discussing the belief, not the movement.

So you were specifcally discussing the creationist movement of US Xian fundamentalists from the 1920's on, rather than the belief itself.

yes. creationism. that is what the word means.

yes. creationism. that is what the word means.

Creationism can mean the belief that god created the universe and everything in it, which is how Auevia defined it:

... Creationism started at a time when people explained the origin of the world best they could....

Or it can be used to describe the movement in the USA during the 1920's by Xian fundamentalists:

In the 1920s the term creationism became particularly associated with a Christian fundamentalist movement opposed to the idea of human evolution, which succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools.

Obviously, the age-old belief and the 20th century movement are two different things. Auevia was talking about one. You were discussing the other.

Obviously, the age-old belief and the 20th century movement are two different things. Auevia was talking about one. You were discussing the other.

This topic however is about the fundies version, since that is what some people want to see in science class.

I feel like I'm the only one capable of distinguishing between the belief, and the movement to teach the belief in public schools.

You do realise that the creationism movement does not wish to teach the creationism belief ? It wishes to teach that the creationism belief is scientific.

There is a fundamental difference. Believing is fine. Lying about what the belief is is not.

This topic however is about the fundies version, since that is what some people want to see in science class.

I feel like I'm the only one capable of distinguishing between the belief, and the movement to teach the belief in public schools.

I feel like I'm the only one capable of distinguishing between the belief, and the movement to teach the belief in public schools.

It's pretty clear to me. The concept of creationism is, well, creationism; in and of itself, it's simply the belief that a God or Gods created the universe.

Creationism (big-C), on the other hand, refers to the politicized movement that stresses a wide variety of completely untenable, both factually and in many cases theologically, ideas and which has also launched a broad-based attack on the integrity of science education in the United States (and other places, but this is its main stronghold) in an attempt to force its religious ideology in to the classroom.

Another big note is that creationism does not necessarily exclude evolution; theistic evolution and deism can both be considered "creationist" in that there is a God involved in starting the process, but they have nothing in common with Creationism, which advocates a hard-line belief that went out of date around 300 years ago. Francis Collins is the eminent example of theistic evolution; a brilliant scientist who has had no difficulty in reconciling his beliefs with scientific evidence.

You do realise that the creationism movement does not wish to teach the creationism belief ? It wishes to teach that the creationism belief is scientific.

There is a fundamental difference. Believing is fine. Lying about what the belief is is not.

I realise many things. I realise that since the creationist movement wishes to teach creationism in science class that teaching it as scientific is therefore implied. I realise that the relationship between Christian theology and the scientific method is far more complicated than the NSG paradigm of evolution vs. religion. I realise that creationism can mean more than one thing. I realise that people will use the different meanings interchangeably even though they shouldn't. I realise that most people can't be bothered to look at more than the post they're replying to. I realise many things.

I realise many things.

Then show that a bit more often.

Creationism can mean the belief that god created the universe and everything in it

only when used incorrectly. creationism has always been the thing that is part of the fundamentalist reaction. check the oed.

It's pretty clear to me. The concept of creationism is, well, creationism; in and of itself, it's simply the belief that a God or Gods created the universe.

seems more like 'religion' to me.

seems more like 'religion' to me.

Religion =/= creationism.

Creationism, by definition is religious, but religion is not necessarily creationism.

Schools should teach facts and how to find the facts. It is not the job of public schools to teach opinions and wishful thinking as facts. Scientifically, evolution is based in fact, creationism is opinion and ill-founded opinion at that.

The first page and the last page kinda look the same...

we say the pledge to america "One Nation Under GOD" why not teach the children about that God? i believe as a holy empire that all students should have a basic understanding of the God that they do so serve.

~Holy Empire of Delicious Land~

AMEN BROTHER! Along with teaching creationism, I believe we should also learn how to start an armed revolutioned against the liberal society. Why not cap some of those idiots. Even God killed wrongdoers, can anyone say SODOM AND GAMORAH?

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

fail.

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

we say the pledge to america "One Nation Under GOD" why not teach the children about that God? i believe as a holy empire that all students should have a basic understanding of the God that they do so serve.

Agreed. Let us start with history lessons that explain why "God" is there, so the kids can point and laugh at people that call the USA a "holy empire".

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

1) Assuming that not only the existence of transcendent beings, not only the existence of omnipotent etc beings (itself logically fallacious), and not only assuming that one of these exists, but that yours is that one and you know exactly what he wants is hardly what I'd call 'truth'

2) Scientific theory =/= layperson's theory. Science doesn't use the word 'truth', so anything not postulated (basically, math and 'it is', things that have to be assumed for any sort of rational development to occur) is a theory. Gravity, germs, stoichiometry, hell even basic simple-machine physics are all just a bunch of scientific theories. Theories in the scientific sense are tested and are the most accurate explanation we can come up with for the data at this time.

3) Occam's razor pwns Creationism.

EDIT: 4) Interestingly enough, Chatton's anti-razor also pwns [your] Creationism

I get that he was sarcastic, just wanted to whip out the counter-arguments since a lot of people actually DO believe this

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

Nice sarcasm. I almost thought you really do not know what a theory is ;)
Pity lots of people actually do have the beliefs you describe :(

we say the pledge to america "One Nation Under GOD" why not teach the children about that God? i believe as a holy empire that all students should have a basic understanding of the God that they do so serve.

~Holy Empire of Delicious Land~

Hey, dumbass, go somewhere else and delusion people!

Honestly. And America is in no FORM a 'Holy Empire'

And any at all remaining such nations using a title to that end should be assimilated into another country, where people are smart.

Religion =/= creationism.

Creationism, by definition is religious, but religion is not necessarily creationism.

and this disagrees with my statement, how?

and this disagrees with my statement, how?

Creationism in the sense we're discussing is a political movement, not just a religious belief. It seeks to advance its goals in the political sphere, namely forcing fundamentalist theology, especially the literal interpretation of the Bible in to schools. As I said before, a person can be a creationist and wholly support evolutionary theory; they are by no means mutually exclusive, and shouldn't be in any sane theological system.

However, this creationist cannot be a Creationist because this would undermine the very goals of the movement. That's why there are no (or at least none I've heard of) supporters of theistic evolution in the Creationist movement. Aside from the fact that these individuals could not ethically stand the sheer intellectual dishonesty and dirty tricks used by this supposed "religious" movement, they would be completely out of place in an environment that is hostile to science, logic, and rationality...and given that some of the most prominent TE supporters are scientists, they're not going to associate with something that hates the very things to which they have dedicated their lives.

As I said before, a person can be a creationist and wholly support evolutionary theory. However, they cannot be a Creationist and do so, because this would undermine the very goals of the movement.

but this only works if what you mean by small-c creationist is 'religious', and not creationist at all. to be a creationist is to reject evolution, full stop. find me notable organization that calls itself creationist in the your small-c sense. show me historical examples of this usage. cause i don't believe it exists.

but this only works if what you mean by small-c creationist is 'religious', and not creationist at all. to be a creationist is to reject evolution, full stop. find me notable organization that calls itself creationist in the your small-c sense. show me historical examples of this usage. cause i don't believe it exists.

There aren't any...because they have no reason to distinguish themselves as "creationists". Their beliefs are fully compatible with evolution, making such a distinction nothing more than an unnecessary distraction. Using that term would do nothing but confuse people as to their true views.

There aren't any...because they have no reason to distinguish themselves as "creationists". Their beliefs are fully compatible with evolution, making such a distinction nothing more than an unnecessary distraction. Using that term would do nothing but confuse people as to their true views.

so why do you wish to use a term that already has a meaning in a completely opposite sense that nobody uses? what is the point? we already have a word for what you are calling small-c creationism. religion.

Technically - as pointed out before - being religious does not require one to believe in a Creator.

maybe. do we know of any that don't?

so why do you wish to use a term that already has a meaning in a completely opposite sense that nobody uses? what is the point? we already have a word for what you are calling small-c creationism. religion.

Technically - as pointed out before - being religious does not require one to believe in a Creator.

maybe. do we know of any that don't?

Buddhism and Scientology come to mind.

so why do you wish to use a term that already has a meaning in a completely opposite sense that nobody uses? what is the point? we already have a word for what you are calling small-c creationism. religion.

I don't. (if anything, more people should, if only to take the term back from these clowns).

maybe. do we know of any that don't?

Einstein possibly as well.

Because falsified truth shouldn't be taught. :)? God is no truth, falsified or otherwise.

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GODBecause falsified truth shouldn't be taught. :)

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

Just curious. May I presume you'll also be teaching Islamic creationism? Hunduistic? Taoistic? because in my humble opinion African or Maori creation myths are as 'scientific' as any.

we say the pledge to america "One Nation Under GOD" why not teach the children about that God? i believe as a holy empire that all students should have a basic understanding of the God that they do so serve.

~Holy Empire of Delicious Land~
You mean you don't teach children that you added that line to distinguish yourselves from the godless commies during the cold war? Wow, your history classes are seriously lacking.

Oh, and America is a secular nation. Read article XI of the Treaty Of Tripoli.
AMEN BROTHER! Along with teaching creationism, I believe we should also learn how to start an armed revolutioned against the liberal society. Why not cap some of those idiots. Even God killed wrongdoers, can anyone say SODOM AND GAMORAH?
Obvious troll is obvious and should GTFO.
For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD
Again, obvious troll is obvious and should have GTFO by now.
Just curious. May I presume you'll also be teaching Islamic creationism? Hunduistic? Taoistic? because in my humble opinion African or Maori creation myths are as 'scientific' as any.

I like the viking creation myth. It's got uber-cows, giants and murder. Way better than than the christian creation myth.

I like the viking creation myth. It's got uber-cows, giants and murder. Way better than than the christian creation myth.

I maintain that nothing beats the good old autofellation of the Egyptian god Atum. Perhaps Ron Jeremy could demonstrate how it is done in front of the kiddies.

That after all is what the Creationism movement wants.

There's no "proof" of gravity, either. Just strong, observational evidence empirically gained through experimentation and incorporated into a theoretical framework for explaining related phenomena. We call these things "theories" and we teach them in science classes because that's as good as it gets. Nothing in science is ever "proven," one can only provide evidence for and against a theory, and the strength and weight of this evidence results in a theory being kept, discarded, or altered to incorporate the new evidence.

I seriously don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

Personally, I strongly suspect that they do understand this, but pretend not to in an infantile attempt to score points in an arguement.

Then show that a bit more often.

:rolleyes:

only when used incorrectly. creationism has always been the thing that is part of the fundamentalist reaction. check the oed.

creationism

• noun the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/creationism?view=uk

Good idea. Apparently the OED has decided two things: first of all, it specifically discusses the belief, not the fundy reaction. Second, it implies that only the Abrahamic religions are creationist. Are you sure you want to use the OED definition? It seems rather limited. I preferred the one from your first source, which discussed several meanings of the word creationist.

so why do you wish to use a term that already has a meaning in a completely opposite sense that nobody uses? what is the point? we already have a word for what you are calling small-c creationism. religion.

The point is this: creationism has more than one meaning. It can mean the specific movement you are referring to. It can mean the belief itself. 'Religion' does not mean: belief that god created the universe and everything in it. It can include that, but you can also have religion without that particular belief.

For the people who read the comment above, I'm not really like that. I do believe in creationism, and I agree that it should be taught. For those who say it is only a myth, well I can assure you that most things in science are theories. GRAVITY, for instance is only a theory, along with death of dinosaurs. THEORIES! So if we can teach unproven science, why shouldnt we be able to teach the truth? <- and by "truth" I mean GOD

Scientific theories only bacome theories once they can dish up a bucketload of evidence to support them, and they fall over very quickly as soon as there is a single piece of evidence disproving them.
Show me a single verifiable shred of evidence for god, and then we'll talk. Until then, God is a hypothesis, not even a theory yet.

Good idea. Apparently the OED has decided two things: first of all, it specifically discusses the belief, not the fundy reaction. Second, it implies that only the Abrahamic religions are creationist. Are you sure you want to use the OED definition? It seems rather limited. I preferred the one from your first source, which discussed several meanings of the word creationist.

the belief is the fundy reaction. they are one and the same. nobody was a creationist until the rise of fundamentalism as a reaction against modernism and scientific advancements like evolution and geology which were seen as undermining christianity. not even people who believed the genesis stories were literal. creationism as a belief requires these things.

i am willing to allow creationism to refer to the similar recent (and future) reactions in other religions against modernism and scientific knowledge - basically because it makes sense to metaphorically extend the christian concept of 'fundamentalism' to them if they fit a certain pattern, despite the doctrinal differences involved, and therefore the extension of creationism as well, as long as we are clear about which version of creationism we are talking about.

The point is this: creationism has more than one meaning. It can mean the specific movement you are referring to. It can mean the belief itself. 'Religion' does not mean: belief that god created the universe and everything in it. It can include that, but you can also have religion without that particular belief.

using creationism to mean "the belief of a (very large) subset of religions which holds that the universe was created by a god or gods" does nothing except muddy the waters. the real word that is used is just 'creation' by itself, but even that doesn't really get the distinction across since even religions which don't have their gods doing the actual creating will have some sort of creation account. what you want is something like 'theistic creation'.

btw, the full oed actually does give a second meaning. apparently at one point people were using the term to mean that god directly created souls for each human born, as opposed to traducianism, which held that a child's soul is inherited from its parents. i can sorta see how the fundies latched on to this term, given that meaning.

the belief is the fundy reaction. they are one and the same. nobody was a creationist until the rise of fundamentalism as a reaction against modernism and scientific advancements like evolution and geology which were seen as undermining christianity. not even people who believed the genesis stories were literal. creationism as a belief requires these things.

i am willing to allow creationism to refer to the similar recent (and future) reactions in other religions against modernism and scientific knowledge - basically because it makes sense to metaphorically extend the christian concept of 'fundamentalism' to them if they fit a certain pattern, despite the doctrinal differences involved, and therefore the extension of creationism as well, as long as we are clear about which version of creationism we are talking about.



using creationism to mean "the belief of a (very large) subset of religions which holds that the universe was created by a god or gods" does nothing except muddy the waters. the real word that is used is just 'creation' by itself, but even that doesn't really get the distinction across since even religions which don't have their gods doing the actual creating will have some sort of creation account. what you want is something like 'theistic creation'.

btw, the full oed actually does give a second meaning. apparently at one point people were using the term to mean that god directly created souls for each human born, as opposed to traducianism, which held that a child's soul is inherited from its parents. i can sorta see how the fundies latched on to this term, given that meaning.

No. You are muddying the waters by redefining creationism to mean something specific when it actually means more than that.

I AM A JEDI!!! NEXT CENSES TELL THE GOVERNMENT YOU ARE A JEDI! I FEEL A DISTURBANCE IN THE FORCE. THE POPE IS PREGNANT...AGAIN.

http://www.thepregnancytester.com/image/pope1.jpg

No. You are muddying the waters by redefining creationism to mean something specific when it actually means more than that.

find me a major organization that uses the term in your sense. find me some historical uses in places of note that do.

wiki, the oed, various dead tree encyclopedias, every major participant in the debate, etc. use it to mean exactly what i say it means. the best you will find is the occasional brief statement at the start of an article by non-creationists that it could be used in some very general sense before then proceeding to talk at length about how it is actually used - aka what i say it means.

find me a major organization that uses the term in your sense. find me some historical uses in places of note that do.

wiki, the oed, various dead tree encyclopedias, every major participant in the debate, etc. use it to mean exactly what i say it means. the best you will find is the occasional brief statement at the start of an article by non-creationists that it could be used in some very general sense before then proceeding to talk at length about how it is actually used - aka what i say it means.

Are you claiming that the word 'creationism' can only mean the fundamentalist movement and nothing else?

If you are claiming that, you are wrong. If I misunderstood and you are claiming something else, then we're having two different arguments.

Are you claiming that the word 'creationism' can only mean the fundamentalist movement and nothing else?

No, he is implying that whenever creationism is mentioned in any serious discussion, there is a 99,99%* chance one is referring to the fundamentalist movement.

* Figure completely made up with no supporting evidence. Do not take literally.

I AM A JEDI!!! NEXT CENSES TELL THE GOVERNMENT YOU ARE A JEDI! I FEEL A DISTURBANCE IN THE FORCE. THE POPE IS PREGNANT...AGAIN.

http://www.thepregnancytester.com/image/pope1.jpg

The pope is pregnant? poor guy especially at his age.
Over 100 pages in this thread, wow, that's alot of reading, and there's no chances of some subjects being repeated right? Because when you get more people talking about the same thing, they bring different perspectives on a subject. Or you get loads of people who say the same thing over and over.
I'm called insane if i start talking to imaginary voices in my head and trying to be nice to them, yet if lots of people do this it's called 'belief'.
So following this line of thought, debating about this is more sort of comparing different illnesses and which one should be deemed the 'right' one.
Well i suppose it passes the time.:)

I'm a Christian and I support Evolution. Creationism started at a time when people explained the origin of the world best they could. However, I do believe that God arranged the process of evolution to have precise results in some way or other. I also believe that although science can take us as far back as the beginning of the universe, the fact that it just "appeared" from an infinitely small "nothing" full of everything to create everything and suddenly began expanding out and out is, in my opinion a work of God.

actually, creationism got its start as a response to the development of the theory of evolution, the rise of modernism, and increasing liberalism in the church. it was and is explicitly built upon the rejection of all that.

No, he is implying that whenever creationism is mentioned in any serious discussion, there is a 99,99%* chance one is referring to the fundamentalist movement.

* Figure completely made up with no supporting evidence. Do not take literally.

Which definition is Auevia using?

When Free Soviets responded, which definition did he use?

Creationism is the belief that the basic forms of life were intelligently designed by a being that is on a higher order than humans, and is thus transcendent to humans (Johnson, 1991).

What about this guy (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html)?

Which definition is Auevia using?

presumably the one that actually applies to the discussion. assuming that to be the case, then his claim about its origin is either false or uninformative (when exactly haven't people explained things as best they could?) and i addressed that. assuming he used it in a way that nobody does but you claim we should take it, his claim is meaningless and incoherent. my way assumes ignorance or sloppiness, you way assumes incompetence.

note the explicit opposition between creationism and evolution in that post, if you need more reason to think the poster not retarded.

What about this guy (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html)?

what about him? intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit, and philip johnson is the tailor. that isn't what he believes creationism is at all, that just what he started saying after the supreme court handed them their asses, before they further refined the approach to get rid of the word creationism entirely from public documents. the demonstrated evolution of creationism goes:
creationism -> "creationism just means a designer, scout's honor" -> cdesign proponentsists -> intelligent design

Creationism, as a theory, fails Poppers Falsification principle, that any scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable with evidence. This said, the idea that evolution might not explain every little idea, generally embraced by "creationists" but sometimes embraced by others as well, such as Seattle's Discovery Institute, which is most definitely not a Christian organization, is a valid possibility and something that can and should be explored, and reexplored, for many years to come.

Creationism, as a theory, fails Poppers Falsification principle, that any scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable with evidence. This said, the idea that evolution might not explain every little idea, generally embraced by "creationists" but sometimes embraced by others as well, such as Seattle's Discovery Institute, which is most definitely not a Christian organization, is a valid possibility and something that can and should be explored, and reexplored, for many years to come.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=4789268ebc08dd55&ei=xDWJR5W_GozCqwOQ-ti1DA&url=http%3A//www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.evolution12jan12%2C0%2C3239206.story&cid=1125748402
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/93309.php
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7954251
Explore.

presumably the one that actually applies to the discussion. assuming that to be the case, then his claim about its origin is either false or uninformative (when exactly haven't people explained things as best they could?) and i addressed that. assuming he used it in a way that nobody does but you claim we should take it, his claim is meaningless and incoherent. my way assumes ignorance or sloppiness, you way assumes incompetence.

Wow. Your lack of reading comprehension is amazing. (S)he is communicating this: the belief in a supernatural origin for the universe and human life came before humanity had developed the science and technology to explain it otherwise.

That's pretty coherent.

note the explicit opposition between creationism and evolution in that post, if you need more reason to think the poster not retarded.

It's not that poster's intelligence that I am doubting.

what about him? intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit, and philip johnson is the tailor. that isn't what he believes creationism is at all, that just what he started saying after the supreme court handed them their asses, before they further refined the approach to get rid of the word creationism entirely from public documents. the demonstrated evolution of creationism goes:
creationism -> "creationism just means a designer, scout's honor" -> cdesign proponentsists -> intelligent design

I think we are having two different arguments here. I am not talking about intelligent design. And my whole argument with you was merely to inform you that your response to Auevia used a different meaning for the word 'creationism' than (s)he did.

End of discussion.

Absolutely.

If they can teach fairytales like evolution, then why not something that at the very least disproved?

Fact is, most people go to one or the other, because evolution allows you to deny God, but real science, the deeper you go and do ACTUAL SCIENCE, the more you're realize that this isn't a product of chance.

fairytales like evolution,Off to a great start.
Fact isWhoa, take yourself a little too seriously. Control group, anyone?
because evolution allows you to deny GodThat's a choice completely independent from evolution. But it is funny how many people come to that conclusion based on simple comparison of evidence and reason to flights of fancy and absurd delusional perspectives.
ACTUAL SCIENCE, the more you're realize that this isn't a product of chance.Which you're willing to provide examples of, perhaps?
Review a few posts up.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13366126&postcount=1624
Do you know what "chance" is? I would hazard a guess that you wouldn't, since your approach implies, STRONGLY, NO choice in the matter, what with itbeinggodandall. Either that, or you don't mind bearing false witness.
Perhaps your "faith" will see you through this little conundrum?

Absolutely.

If they can teach fairytales like evolution, then why not something that at the very least disproved?

Fact is, most people go to one or the other, because evolution allows you to deny God, but real science, the deeper you go and do ACTUAL SCIENCE, the more you're realize that this isn't a product of chance.

*chuckle* I'm sure the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS I work with on a daily basis will be very amused to hear this little revelation.

By which I mean, I'm going to tell my colleagues, and we're going to spend a good few minutes laughing at you.

*chuckle* I'm sure the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS I work with on a daily basis will be very amused to hear this little revelation.

By which I mean, I'm going to tell my colleagues, and we're going to spend a good few minutes laughing at you.Popcorn time! Yay!
*dances weasel dance*
Make sure the folks you conscript (should you choose *hope hope hope*) consider not being one-hit wonders here, else they look like the coward puppets who have been showing up a lot on the religious threads ....

Popcorn time! Yay!
*dances weasel dance*
Make sure the folks you conscript (should you choose *hope hope hope*) consider not being one-hit wonders here, else they look like the coward puppets who have been showing up a lot on the religious threads ....

Oh I'm probably not going to have them post here. Mostly just keep it to water cooler talk. You'd be surprising how much a bunch of physicists can get a laugh off about something stupid people on the internet said about science.

Oh I'm probably not going to have them post here. Mostly just keep it to water cooler talk. You'd be surprising how much a bunch of physicists can get a laugh off about something stupid people on the internet said about science.
Oh, i know! That's precisely why i implore, in my semi-gracious way, that they get on here and clean a few grimy clocks! :)
*begs*

Oh, i know! That's precisely why i implore, in my semi-gracious way, that they get on here and clean a few grimy clocks! :)
*begs*

I'll see what I can do.

I'm leery about getting my boss on here, largely because while we share a significant level of derision towards Creationist-types, he's considerably more economically conservative than the mean here.

I'll see what I can do.

I'm leery about getting my boss on here, largely because while we share a significant level of derision towards Creationist-types, he's considerably more economically conservative than the mean here.

Then a goodly-thing was accomplished here, on this day.
*bows*

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

WTF! enough of these fucking Creationism threads!! We get a new one like each month and it's always the same damn "Schools are about learning different ideas" argument!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

We get a new one like each month and it's always the same damn "Schools are about learning different ideas" argument!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang:Obviously, it's time for offering the school of Satan, to help supplement their argument.
Certainly, these creationists aren't hypocrites and/or cowards, and will embrace it openly, and earnestly.

For consideration:
http://www.kitv.com/news/1223635/detail.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/186756/Schools-timeline-Satan-public-school-system
http://www.faithdoubt.com/creation-and-evolution-satans-having-a-lot-of-fun-with-this-one

...there's certainly enough there to argue about.
And i skipped the links to the movies.
:p

Oh, how do you know the universe is a few billion years old again?Let the laughter commence?

*chuckle* I'm sure the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS I work with on a daily basis will be very amused to hear this little revelation.

By which I mean, I'm going to tell my colleagues, and we're going to spend a good few minutes laughing at you.

Oh, how do you know the universe is a few billion years old again?

Oh, how do you know the universe is a few billion years old again?

Well, we know the Earth is billions of years old through a combination of geological data, multiple forms of radiometric dating, and helioseismic verification of radiometric dating. We know the universe is billions of years old not only from the observations of the Earth itself, but also from various astrological phenomena, observed properties of physical cosmology, and WMAP observation of conditions immediately following the Big Bang. All of these produce substantial empirical evidence confirming both the age of the Earth and the age of the universe.

Honestly, if you're trying to advance any creationist argument, you might as well give up now because it is hopeless. They have long since lost any scientific credibility to their arguments and even the majority of the movement is distancing itself from anything that attempts to dispute the clear evidence confirming that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Every single criticism has been utterly destroyed and the evidence supporting scientific observation has been rigorously reinforced through multiple experiments and an exponentially growing amount of empirical data confirming previous theoretical data.

Or, if you're a troll, nevermind. We both undoubtedly agree.

utterlyToo much blabbity blaboo. This is the meat of the argument, here.

Too much blabbity blaboo. This is the meat of the argument, here.

I was going to say "every", but that's fine too.

I was going to say "every", but that's fine too."Utterly" should have its own emoticon. Does it?

Well, we know the Earth is billions of years old through a combination of geological data, multiple forms of radiometric dating, and helioseismic verification of radiometric dating. We know the universe is billions of years old not only from the observations of the Earth itself, but also from various astrological phenomena, observed properties of physical cosmology, and WMAP observation of conditions immediately following the Big Bang. All of these produce substantial empirical evidence confirming both the age of the Earth and the age of the universe.

Honestly, if you're trying to advance any creationist argument, you might as well give up now because it is hopeless. They have long since lost any scientific credibility to their arguments and even the majority of the movement is distancing itself from anything that attempts to dispute the clear evidence confirming that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Every single criticism has been utterly destroyed and the evidence supporting scientific observation has been rigorously reinforced through multiple experiments and an exponentially growing amount of empirical data confirming previous theoretical data.

Or, if you're a troll, nevermind. We both undoubtedly agree.

Like C14 dating? :rolleyes:

Like C14 dating? :rolleyes:
If this is your best, you should trot right on down to market and get some milk, and leave your keyboard alone.
Don't do this. It will only end in tears.
This is *phenomenally* bad form.

Absolutely.

If they can teach fairytales like evolution,
It's funny because you're painfully ignorant.
then why not something that at the very least disproved?
Are you suggesting that we should teach creationism when it has been disproved? Or that creationism disproves evolution, thus we should teach it?

Fact
Precious few of them in this post. is, most people go to one or the other, because evolution allows you to deny God,
Sooooooo ignorant.
but real science,
Which you wouldn't know if it crawled down your throat.
the deeper you go and do ACTUAL SCIENCE, the more you're realize that this isn't a product of chance.
Isn't it? Do you have conclusive proof of this?
Like C14 dating? :rolleyes:
Hah, you think your ignorance about how radiometric dating works somehow counters that whole post? Funny.

It's funny because you're painfully ignorant.

Are you suggesting that we should teach creationism when it has been disproved? Or that creationism disproves evolution, thus we should teach it?


Precious few of them in this post.
Sooooooo ignorant.

Which you wouldn't know if it crawled down your throat.

Isn't it? Do you have conclusive proof of this?

Hah, you think your ignorance about how radiometric dating works somehow counters that whole post? Funny.

They were just testing us! :p
It's a faith thing that they'll be back to correct our opinions about how woefully ignorant their posts make them out to be.
*twiddles thumbs*

I wonder if the Mods can edit the title to include "WARNING: Do not drink Carbonated or hot liquids while reading this thread. Nasal damage highly likely."

man, that coke was PAINFUL. :(

I wonder if the Mods can edit the title to include "WARNING: Do not drink Carbonated or hot liquids while reading this thread. Nasal damage highly likely."

man, that coke was PAINFUL. :(Was it HOT coke?!? :eek:

Was it HOT coke?!? :eek:

nah, my cold's over and done with. ;)

nah, my cold's over and done with. ;)Wishin' wifey was so lucky.

They were just testing us! :p
It's a faith thing that they'll be back to correct our opinions about how woefully ignorant their posts make them out to be.
*twiddles thumbs*

I concur. It usually takes a lot more science than that to scare off the creationists.

I concur. It usually takes a lot more science than that to scare off the creationists.
I thought about the links usually provided for the whole "C14" issue, but i thought i'd have to explain each syllable in it, which frankly would distract me from other things i'm doing, like porn/news and watching funniest animal videos on the tube.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
:D
CHRISTIAN answers?
Verily, thou doth wound me so!
Besides, this seems like spam, being your own rebuttal and all :p

But at least you ... sorta ... showed up.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dating/Dating_Archaeological_Sites_and_Artifacts.htm
Take on a few in that link, there. Consider *NOT* rebutting with an exclusively "christian" source.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Here's a little less personal:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Enjoy.

To be fair, he only mentioned C14... none of the other methods used.

To be fair, he only mentioned C14... none of the other methods used.

That's true. It may be s/he came to a gunfight with a rubber band.
Their first volley was dealt with, aptly, in Vetalia's thread, and then it just kinda withered after that.
They may have just been under the impression that scientists aren't ACTUALLY scientists but people looking for the easiest, quickest, most singular of answers ... and didn't think there actually WAS any other method.
Or worse, they took someone else's word about something and tried to argue about it from that direction.

Here's a little less personal:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Enjoy.


Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.
That's good! ...although confusing, given your apparent allegiance to all but evidence.
Now deal with the links.
I'll indulge you ... a little ... and review this particular link
NOT THE ONES YOU IGNORED
for cross-examination.
brb.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html
In a number of occasions, Dr. Plaisted speculates that decay rates for radioactive isotopes could have been faster in the past than they currently are (p. 2). Like many creationists, Dr. Plaisted (p. 5) cites Chapter 12 - How Old is the Earth, from the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, and claims that radioactive decay rates might have been affected by increases in the amount of neutrinos, neutrons, or cosmic rays hitting the Earth in the past. This is an old creationist claim that was refuted long ago. First of all, any radiation that would penetrate the crust and change the decay rates of isotopes, most certainly would have killed every life form on Earth. Now, creationists might invoke miracles to magically explain how decay rates could change without sterilizing the Earth. (...)

Dalrymple (1984, p. 88-89) refutes in some detail the various creationist claims that radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and cosmic radiation, including Dudley's "neutrino sea." Dalrymple points out that there is no evidence of an abundant supply of neutrons to affect radiometric decay. If there had been, the neutrons would have also noticeably affected the chemistry of the more common elements. Because neutrinos have no charge and little or no rest mass, they pass through the entire Earth without leaving significant effects. If they can pass through the entire Earth without significant effects, they are not likely to interact with atomic nuclei and affect radioactive decay. As Brush (1983, p. 332) and Dalrymple (1984, p. 89) state, Dudley's neutrino sea violates both relativity and quantum mechanics. Not even Dudley himself agrees with how creationists have applied his hypothesis (Dalrymple, 1984, p. 89).

Even creationist John Morris (1994, p. 52-53) admits that there's no convincing evidence that radiometric decay rates have significantly changed over time. There is simply no known scientific mechanism that could produce such changes. Dalrymple (1984, p. 88) states that decay rates are essentially unaffected by temperatures between -186°C to 2000°C, at pressures that range from a vacuum to several thousand atmospheres, and under different gravity and magnetic fields. Because radioactive decay occurs within the nucleus of atoms while terrestrial chemical processes only affect the outer electrons, it is not surprising that the Earth's chemical and biological processes cannot significantly affect radioactive decay rates.
M'kay, there's one ...

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.

and with this... I dub the troll. Have a nice weekend. :rolleyes:

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.

What does interest you?

and with this... I dub the troll. Have a nice weekend. :rolleyes:

The worst part is that you put forth the effort for me (and likely others) to reconsider what we might think his/her approach was about.
:(

What does interest you?
Someone who agrees with their approach, or at least, the things they've heard, is my guess.

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.

Plaisted (p. 24) calls for double-blind radiometric tests on Phanerozoic outcrops using different methods and different laboratories. Of course, interlaboratory studies on radiometric dating and multiple analyses on outcrops with different methods are nothing new. Examples are cited in Harland et al. (1990) for Phanerozoic samples and Dalrymple (1991) for meteorites and Precambrian outcrops. One of the older and well-known interlaboratory studies is Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965). The results of this study are also described in some detail in Jaeger (1979, p. 23-25). In Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965), 55 laboratories were sent a muscovite standard for dating. The average K/Ar date for the muscovite was 83.0 million years and the average Rb/Sr date was reasonably close at 85.7 million years. Interlaboratory standard deviations were only 1.2% for the K/Ar dates and 2.8% for the Rb/Sr dates. These excellent results refute creationist claims that K/Ar and Rb/Sr methods are inconsistent or imprecise.
+
Plaisted (p. 24-26) cites studies from the 1920's by Joly and more recent studies by Gentry to claim that pleochroic haloes indicate that decay rates have not been constant over time. Brush (1983, p. 333-334) discusses this issue and shows that the halos do not support any changes in radioactive decay constants. Joly even conceded that his critics were right (Brush, 1983, p. 333). The use of radiohaloes by Gentry and others to support creationism has been further undermined by Odom and Rink (1989) and Wakefield (1987/1988). Additional criticism of Gentry's claims are given by Wakefield in The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mysteries", and by Lorence Collins in Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite.
+
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review2.html
The whole page, of course.

...you know, it's funny, what with the whole "creationism" and "science class" in the same thread :p

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.
Of the irony. If pages of lies don't interest you then why did you link to christiananswers.net?
Someone who agrees with their approach, or at least, the things they've heard, is my guess.

Second this.

I stand corrected after delving further into the statement i made.What an unnecessary gravedig.

I think a quiet word to the mods might have worked better? They can just shove the thread down the popularity list without having to lock it.

In any case, it's sure up and walking around now. :(

I think a quiet word to the mods might have worked better? They can just shove the thread down the popularity list without having to lock it.

In any case, it's sure up and walking around now. :(

But I like creationism threads. It's fun to pelt the ignorant with facts until they beg for mercy.

In any case, it's sure up and walking around now. :(
Dontcha mean "marching"? :p

But I like creationism threads. It's fun to pelt the ignorant with facts until they beg for mercy.It is odd, isn't it, that there's never a shortage of targets? ... ah yes, the "puppet" thingie Bottle mentioned ... :p

Pages and pages of lies don't interest me. The excuses are pathetic.

This is apparently not the case as evidenced by your earlier post:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Can you explain to my why when scientists wish to dispute the claims of theologians they simply take their claims and explain where they are wrong or their understanding is inadequate, but when theologians wish to dispute the claims of scientists they simply accuse them of "false science" and other vague insults and present science badly.

But I like creationism threads. It's fun to pelt the ignorant with facts until they beg for mercy.

Funny, it seemed like a reasonable attempt to quell the zombie. Could have been more strongly worded perhaps, made use of the phrase "STFU n00b!"

I just hate the idea that anyone who posted to this thread a month ago is going to come back and reopen debates which were abandoned. Throw in people who never saw the thread the first time, obviously aren't going to read 1600+ posts, and just twitch at whatever's moving on the last page ...

we'd be better off with a nice-clearly defined question to start over with. Like "Creationists: Was the AIDS virus on the Ark?"

Oh, congrats on post # I666 ;)

===========

Dontcha mean "marching"? :p

Yeah, I guess that's what zombies do.

I suppose it's too late for reburying to work. So the only question is: "holy water or the shotgun?"

This is apparently not the case as evidenced by your earlier post:
I think they're gonna feel that one a long, long time. :p


Can you explain to my why when scientists wish to dispute the claims of theologians they simply take their claims and explain where they are wrong or their understanding is inadequate, but when theologians wish to dispute the claims of scientists they simply accuse them of "false science" and other vague insults and present science badly.It could be their emotional attachment to the subject matter. They already think they're right for one "reason" although reason itself shows otherwise?
I think if i put the words "false" and "bible" in a search engine, i'll get some specifically scripture-oriented results ... perhaps that's the problem. They use the term "false" a lot because they're plagiarising from the "good" book (irony burns) and they don't want to stray too much from message (talkingpoint)?

I approve of this gravedig, Ancient Borea is entertaining.

we'd be better off with a nice-clearly defined question to start over with. Like "Creationists: Was the AIDS virus on the Ark?"


Ohfuck. Have you already done that thread? It'd be BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!
*dances weasel dance*
Yeah, I guess that's what zombies do.

I suppose it's too late for reburying to work. So the only question is: "holy water or the shotgun?"
You know, Jocabia was trying to make a point about that - many, MANY of these things start with same premise. Same people refute or "prove" premise. People argue. People have their feelings hurt, little bit of scald on their worldview, et cetera.
Why not finish it all in one fell swoop with a Methuselah thread? :p

I approve of this gravedig, Ancient Borea is entertaining.And, hopefully, doing some more research for us to review! :)

Whoever the heck said we shouldnt teach falsified truth (referring to Creationism) is an idiot. Science is a falsified truth when you think about it. It is only accepted until something better comes along, then the textbook changes again! For everyone on here that believes God doesn't, I'll see you in Hell...from Heaven. :D

That is, unless you change your ways and finally come to the realization that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one can come to the father but by him...

:)Huckabee 2008:)

Whoever the heck said we shouldnt teach falsified truth (referring to Creationism) is an idiot. Science is a falsified truth when you think about it. It is only accepted until something better comes along, then the textbook changes again! For everyone on here that believes God doesn't, I'll see you in Hell...from Heaven. :D

That is, unless you change your ways and finally come to the realization that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one can come to the father but by him...

:)Huckabee 2008:)
Oh wow.
Just, holey-moley.
SealedWithALick ... Huck? :D

shouldnt teach falsified truth (referring to Creationism) is an idiot.Keeper. We love this approach here.
Like how ya worked in the "falsified" part ... reminds me of a response to Domici.
For everyone on here that believes God doesn't, I'll see you in Hell...from Heaven. God doesn't what? And you'll see me in hell when you're there. Perhaps you already are. Other than that, you'll be just dead. Hope that concept isn't too tough for you.
the realization that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one can come to the father but by him... Heh. Try reading the thread. Or, perhaps, read the source material in MORE than one translation. If you've even gotten that far.

Like C14 dating? :rolleyes:

Except C14 dating is only used as a part of the whole dating process, and only extends back to a fraction of the Earth's age...there are something like seventeen different radiometric dating methods, all backed up by helioseismic and geological measurements.

(and yet C14 alone is still accurate enough to single-handedly destroy Young-Earth Creationism...)

(and yet C14 alone is still accurate enough to single-handedly destroy Young-Earth Creationism...)

counting tree rings is more than enough to do so.

(and yet C14 alone is still accurate enough to single-handedly destroy Young-Earth Creationism...)Hey!
UTTERLY will suffice! :p

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

I think what you mean to say is:
Should schools be able to teach creationism? Of course, why shouldn't they? Schools are about learning different ideas, aren't they?
Here is what I mean to say:
No.

I will be praying for most of yall on here. You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It it actually really sad to see how the liberals have ruined this country with your supposed open minds. Organizations like the ACLU have pretty much ripped the moral fiber of our nation. And it's not even so much that there are so many of yall, it's the fact that yall scream and holler the loudest to get ur way. It's supposed to be the Civil Liberties Union, but where are our liberties to worship God in school? The only reason yall get away with this because the Christians aren't fighting back now. One day though, it will come (the rapture), and most of this planet will be sorely dissapointed...:( I'm so sorry for all of you. May God have mercy on you souls...

I will be praying for most of yall on here.Don't curse me with your babbling living mistake. Save it for your own misdeeds.
You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.Lord of the dance?
http://www.somegeekintn.com/images/blog/dancingjesus_1.gif
I don't believe you ... is that good enough?
*politically ignorant bullshit*Jesus was obviously not interested in the people vs. the law. :rolleyes:
The only reason yall get away with this because the Christians aren't fighting back now.They herald O'Reilly so well with the "war on christmas" bullshit. Oh yeah, and faith-based initiatives using taxpayer $. You're wrong, now save yourself further embarassment by opting for silence on it.
One day though, it will come (the rapture)Hahahaha!! Hee hee, you're cute when you're so doomsaying. What a great message that is to wish upon everyone else.
and most of this planet will be sorely dissapointed...:( You want to talk about disappointment? Care to address just how many times have come and passed that were the heralded END OF DAYS? Hmmm?
You don't know about that though, do you?
I'm so sorry for all of you. May God have mercy on you souls...Physician, heal thyself. And when you're done, teach some of that mercy to your bloodthirsty bastard god.

I will be praying for most of yall on here. You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It it actually really sad to see how the liberals have ruined this country with your supposed open minds. Organizations like the ACLU have pretty much ripped the moral fiber of our nation. And it's not even so much that there are so many of yall, it's the fact that yall scream and holler the loudest to get ur way. It's supposed to be the Civil Liberties Union, but where are our liberties to worship God in school? The only reason yall get away with this because the Christians aren't fighting back now. One day though, it will come (the rapture), and most of this planet will be sorely dissapointed...:( I'm so sorry for all of you. May God have mercy on you souls...

Now is a good time to point out that ACLU defends the right to freedom of worship. This includes christians, as well as atheist, as well as every other religion.

Now is a good time to point out that ACLU defends the right to freedom of worship. This includes christians, as well as atheist, as well as every other religion.
Damned right. *bows*

I approve of this gravedig, Ancient Borea is entertaining.

Oh, you do do you?

Here's one problem with a gravedig, I can quote from the thread, all 1600+ posts of it.

Read here, how you utterly misinterpreted a post by Ifreann, and had your arse handed to you:

I really have no problem with Creationism or Evolution, but I believe more in evolution.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.

So you'd rather believe a 'God' did it!?! Talk about intellectual self-defeat...

I never suggested anything of the sort. My point was that evolution has nothing to do with how life, or the universe, came to be. And it doesn't. As such it does not necessarily disprove the idea of a god or gods creating the universe or creating life, depending on when god/gods allegedly created life on this planet and in what form it was created.

I've seen this logic before, and I know where it leads.
Where it leads? I'm certainly not leading it anywhere.

Once upon a time we thought the world was flat, our beliefs thus we formed by our lack of knowledge, and the 'gaps' of reality were filled in by the spiritual. Our time has progressed the scientific and rational have replaced the irrational primitive aspects of our beginning when we had such a short life expectancy etc. My point is that even though science has completely proven the creation of the universe
Has it? See I find that very unlikely since science never proves anything. Proof is for maths and alcohol.
, given evolution, microbiology and other scientific advances eventually even this will be proven logically in scientific terms. Just because we don't know now how the universe began, I know the temptation to do the intellectual equivolent of 'I give up'
Oh, I see your problem. You think that just because I pointed out that evolution doesn't contradict certain forms of creationism I must believe in one of those forms of creationism. I don't.

You didn't reply. A certain noob saved your bacon by posting next:

I think it did that is why i submitted it. If anyone else (like i ) was still under the impression that some state schools in the US had creationism on the curriculum, my post hopefully added to thier knowledge of the subject.

If you read further into the ongoing debate of creationism in schools you might find that it is, in some states, being pushed quite heavily and that some school boards have indeed voted to include it (either the GAP or Intelligent Design variants)....and then been forced to retract through parent pressure or court legislation.

In my honest opinion...anyone that advocates creationism (any variety) and really believes the answers it gives to many questions...needs to be comitted.

Yet another example of how "religious" zealots try to force thier twisted and falsified "truths" on mainstay society.

Gee, guess what? It was the same poster who gravedug this thread!

I stand corrected after delving further into the statement i made.

Let us all remember that Eureka Australis approves the gravedig.

And of course ASXTC is an honourable man ...

I will be praying for most of yall on here. You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It it actually really sad to see how the liberals have ruined this country with your supposed open minds. Organizations like the ACLU have pretty much ripped the moral fiber of our nation. And it's not even so much that there are so many of yall, it's the fact that yall scream and holler the loudest to get ur way. It's supposed to be the Civil Liberties Union, but where are our liberties to worship God in school? The only reason yall get away with this because the Christians aren't fighting back now. One day though, it will come (the rapture), and most of this planet will be sorely dissapointed...:( I'm so sorry for all of you. May God have mercy on you souls...

Please don't pray for me. Before I saw the light and became an agnostic, I belonged to a religion that believed that one should not, on pain of karmic backlash, pray for or do any work for another without permission. I still hold to that particular belief. You do not have my permission to pray for me, don't do it!

we'd be better off with a nice-clearly defined question to start over with. Like "Creationists: Was the AIDS virus on the Ark?"

Ohfuck. Have you already done that thread? It'd be BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!
*dances weasel dance*

I have not already done that thread, nor ever seen it.

Be my guest! While I have some appetite for the carnage which would ensue, I certainly don't want to initiate it.

Oh, you do do you?

Here's one problem with a gravedig, I can quote from the thread, all 1600+ posts of it.

Read here, how you utterly misinterpreted a post by Ifreann, and had your arse handed to you:



You didn't reply. A certain noob saved your bacon by posting next:



Gee, guess what? It was the same poster who gravedug this thread!



Let us all remember that Eureka Australis approves the gravedig.

And of course ASXTC is an honourable man ...


now that was totally unnecessary... and kinda petty IMHO. :p

I will be praying for most of yall on here. You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I think you'd better quote the chapter and verse, since you're so sure the bible says that.

Now is a good time to point out that ACLU defends the right to freedom of worship. This includes christians, as well as atheist, as well as every other religion.
Very true. The ACLU defended Nazis (as they should have), perhaps the most reactionary group of people in the United States. They are by no means an organization devoted to protecting only liberals.

That being said, I encourage everyone to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU. People may laugh at you, but you get special liberty discounts when you show your card at courts and police stations.

now that was totally unnecessary... and kinda petty IMHO. :p

Was it the veiled accusation, or all the effort I put into the nested quotes, which struck you as petty?

It's kind of hard to know how to take your comment, it seems entirely serious but then it has the "tongue-in-cheek"/"teasing"/"farting-noise" icon after it.

============

That being said, I encourage everyone to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU. People may laugh at you, but you get special liberty discounts when you show your card at courts and police stations.

lol! ...or at least, two giggles :D

I think you'd better quote the chapter and verse, since you're so sure the bible says that.
not quite, but close...
Isaiah 45:23
Romans 14:11
Philippians 2:10-11
;)

Was it the veiled accusation, or all the effort I put into the nested quotes, which struck you as petty?

It's kind of hard to know how to take your comment, it seems entirely serious but then it has the "tongue-in-cheek"/"teasing"/"farting-noise" icon after it.
the "burying his/her nose into it." part. :p

EDIT: forgot to mention... yes, It's supposed to be a light hearted jab at you. nothing serious, maybe mild ribbing. nothing more.

I just realized this thread began in November. This is at least the third time I've posted, believing it was something new.

I just realized this thread began in November. This is at least the third time I've posted, believing it was something new.

*NL reads OP*

"OMG, I must be first to mention separation of church and state!"

*types madly*
*hits submit*

*gets post #1693*

"NOOOOOOOooooooO!"

BunnySaurus how did that noob 'save my bacon', I was simply determining if Ifreann supported creationist notions, he made it perfectly clear he didn't so I dropped it. It sounds to me like you have a personal dislike or me or something, like many reactionaries do.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

No. creationsim is not a scientific theory. Therefore, scientists are not obligated to give it the same time as serious and legitimate theories.

I have not already done that thread, nor ever seen it.

Be my guest! While I have some appetite for the carnage which would ensue, I certainly don't want to initiate it.
I think ... THINK ... it might just be frowned upon by mods.
It's a good point, though, and should come up next (++++++) time.

Therefore, scientists are not obligated to give it the same time as serious and legitimate theories.

Besides, there's barely enough time for that as it is!

All 114 pages (most of it was drivel tho) read and assimilated.

What strikes me the most about the 2 camps of thought is that:
One side has the moral high ground and the backing of quite a few billion years of trial and error...they tend to defend thier position by the cunning use of facts and other generally accepted norms...


The other camp lacks the intelligent responce and fights on the back-foot all the time. The ONLY addition to the debate they bring to the table are quotes from a fictional book...and expect to gain from the exchange.

Lets face it...the world really IS more than a few billion years old (no im not posting facts to back this up....your gonna have to believe me on this one, most people do).

God, if he existed, would have sent me that brochure for heaven by now...I have recieved no such undertaking from the accused.

The majority of posts in this thread are empirical evidence that the other variant of Creationism, the "Intelligent model" is in fact impossible.

I will be praying for most of yall on here. You might not believe now, but the Bible says that one day every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.


RULES I WISH WE HAD IN NSG

#1- People should not be allowed to bible thump if thier post count is in the single digits.

RULES I WISH WE HAD IN NSG

#1- People should not be allowed to bible thump if thier post count is in the single digits.

I like to call it bible-humping. Because they really do seem to get off on it.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

I'm taking that class right now

counting tree rings is more than enough to do so.

Hell, paying attention to written records is enough.

My one, sole contribution to this thread is a Federal Court ruling on the matter.

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Souce. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)


Doesn't it say something when Creationism is legally recognized to NOT be a science?

Doesn't it say something when Creationism is legally recognized to NOT be a science?

Teh ebil librul athiest satanic mussulmen gubbmint is oppressin us Chrisschins!

there is more scientific proof supporting evolution than creationism

there is more scientific proof supporting evolution than creationism

Technically evolution is a fact ;) But there is indeed vastly more evidence for the framework provided by theory of evolution that attempts to explain the consequences and workings of said fact than there is for creationism.

What scientists should do is create a ranking of the various scientific and nonscientific theories on the diversity of species and the origin of humanty according to their scientific quality. Ignoring the whole "god is outside science" aspect, but just looking at the testable and verifiable claims made by the various "theories".

It should be quite trivial to put at least 100 of them between evolution and creationism. Such a list would speak volumes and effectively get rid of the whole false dichotomy.
Not to mention it would be great to say "sorry, but we only have time to treat the top 10 in schools."

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

Theres no proof the unicorns don't exist. There is no proof that some Zebras aren't purple and green.Maybe they are.Maybe God decieved us by making us think they're black and white. But there is evidence. At least more substantial eveidence both in genetics and fossils, and common sense. You can play out that same stupid argument all you want but scientifically theories are more inportant then laws and will always be changed. Gravity is still being changed today, but its only a theory. It can't totally proven. Murder case aren't totally proven, even with all the evidence pointing to them. If you had fingerprints,DNA,and a sighned confession that still doesn't 100% prove someone commited a murder but the evidence certaintly points to them. Evn if they didn't do i,does that mean the person you think did commited the mureder? No, it doesn't! They have to either teach evolution or nothing. Because creationism(or the new,well lets take the religious edge of,spin, "intelligent disign") cannot be tested, thus it cannot be taught in public schools.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

sounds good to me.

and I don't know about other states, but before High School, kids don't have a choice here as to what classes to take.

No. creationsim is not a scientific theory. Therefore, scientists are not obligated to give it the same time as serious and legitimate theories.

Exactly. Contrary to some beliefs, the point of a school is not to pass along every goofy idea some comes up with in the name of "diversity" or "equality" of ideas. Schools have little enough time as it is, and so they have to concentrate on the best supported, best understood, most effective things.

Teaching creationism as a basis for biology is like teaching engineering students that bridges stay up because of the will of God. I can make the claim- but why would anyone think I have the "right" to insist that it be taught?

Exactly. Contrary to some beliefs, the point of a school is not to pass along every goofy idea some comes up with in the name of "diversity" or "equality" of ideas. Schools have little enough time as it is, and so they have to concentrate on the best supported, best understood, most effective things.

Teaching creationism as a basis for biology is like teaching engineering students that bridges stay up because of the will of God. I can make the claim- but why would anyone think I have the "right" to insist that it be taught?

"the reason why planes fly is because everyone on board believes it can. that's why we make up all that mumble-jumble about areodynamics and such. it's just that if more people on the plane believes that the plane won't fly than those that do, the plane crashes. so just keep believing all that stuff about areodynamics and eveyone will have a nice smooth flight. " :D

creationism is for church. I you want your kids to be taught that way go to church. Creationism was created to explain things when they weren't known

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

It could be in science class! Why do we not also add Uranus and Gaeae as well? You know, a class that talks about about how the world is messed-up because the creator was castrated by his son, Chronus.


Or we could possibly put it in mythology....

Do Americans not have a Religious Education class for this sort of thing? (I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm honestly curious).
Of course creationism should not be taught in science classes! I was brought up in a Roman-Catholic school, and even then everything in the Old-Testament was treated as a tale.

Everyone who voted yes should be beaten with 2x4s. Im 100% serious.

If you don't like it, why not go to a private school? Come to think of it why are there even public schools? We can't agee on what's to be taught to the point where nothing is.

Thou shalt not bludgeon this moribund equine any longer... please start a new thread if necessary. :p