Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 331 (121793)
07-04-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
07-04-2004 1:20 AM


A bias has arisen since Darwin which is strictly naturalism.
Actually, that "bias" predates Darwin by several centuries, and is responsible for every scientific development of the last 400 years. It's called "methodological naturalism", and its development marks the birth of true science.
There is no way to do science except by methodological naturalism, by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 1:20 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 331 (141888)
09-12-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by JRTjr
09-12-2004 8:14 PM


Science does not deal in truth, etc.
Please, jrtjr1, don't repeat arguments for which you have not responded to the rebuttals. I've posted a number of posts that show you why your reasoning is flawed in this thread; it's very dishonest and quite against the forum guidelines to repeat those arguments until you respond to my rebuttals.
I've tried a number of times to engage you in that thread but you persist in ignoring me. I'm quite offended to see you repeat these refuted arguments as though you haven't even read my posts.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-12-2004 07:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 8:14 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by coffee_addict, posted 09-12-2004 8:47 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 31 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 10:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 331 (141919)
09-12-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JRTjr
09-12-2004 10:03 PM


Why don't you respond to that message in that thread, please?
While you're at it, please read my posts closer. Saying things like this:
I stated:
"Actually, I doubt that anyone is wasting their time trying to figure out whether or not the law of gravity, or any of the other basic laws of physic is still true/factual."
You respond by stating:
Do you think that, if they changed or stopped working for an hour, no one would notice?
Which has no bearing on whether or not the law of gravity is true/factual.
indicate that you have not read my posts sufficiently closely to respond to them yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2004 10:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JRTjr, posted 09-20-2004 3:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 331 (143321)
09-20-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by JRTjr
09-20-2004 3:48 AM


I don't understand why you've replied in this thread to messages that were in another thread.
Please, take this to that thread. Here it is, for your reference.
Also, your message formatting leaves much to be desired. In the message composer window, if you observe to the left, you'll see where it says "UBB Code is ON"; clicking this link will show you the UBB codes and their use. The use of these codes (especially the QUOTE or QS tages) is recommended because that way, we can tell the difference between your posts and the posts of mine that you are quoting.
And again, you're going to have to do better than to simply repeat your argument, or to simply state that because you want to know facts, you must be able to know them. As it stands this post addresses none of my arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JRTjr, posted 09-20-2004 3:48 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 331 (147322)
10-04-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JRTjr
10-04-2004 8:18 PM


I'd really love to address these things, but you're off-topic.
Reply to my post in the thread in which it appeared and I will participate. I cannot do so until you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JRTjr, posted 10-04-2004 8:18 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 331 (147838)
10-06-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by johnfolton
10-06-2004 3:17 PM


I feel TOE is just a small part of the religion of secular humanism, to increase their following
Why would we want to? Why would we want to evangelize for secular humanism? Not everybody's like you.

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 10-06-2004 3:17 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 331 (151861)
10-22-2004 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by JRTjr
10-22-2004 1:42 AM


This is why atheists are so determined to keep creationism out of public school.
Based on what? What statements of atheists lead you to believe that our purpose is to prevent children from hearing the "truth" that counteracts our "lies"?
That's a pretty bold accusation of dishonesty; as an atheist, you've just called me a duplicitous liar. I challenge you to substantiate that insult, or withdraw it.
Adaptation, although it is often called microevolution, is well with in the purview of all four of the hypotheses we’re testing; and only works for traits already in the gene pool of that species.
Simply untrue. Adaptation both creates new traits, through mutation, and changes their frequency, through selection. Mutation is the source of new traits; adaptation is the process by which trait frequencies are changed through mutation and natural selection.
That is, until you take into account all that has happened from that time to now.
This is simply one large "fine-tuning" argument, and the fatal flaw in that argument is the assumption that the Earth is fine-tuned for life; when it is quite obvious to the most casual observer that life is "fine-tuned" to the conditions of the Earth.
The water does not shape the cup.
The shear number of Just Right conditions necessary for life to exist belies N E.
Life as we know it, you mean. And that's rather the sticking point - we have no idea of the true range of conditions that life can exist under. Certainly, on Earth, life exists under a great range of conditions, from the frozen seas under Antarctica to the super-boiling waters of undersea vents, and every condition in between. There's literally no place on Earth that you cannot find life, except where humans have worked to make it so.
There's nothing "just right" about the Earth - rather, life evolved on the Earth it found itself in. Are we surprised when water takes the shape of its container? Then why should we be surprised when life is shaped by the Earth?
Even laying all that aside, if evolution were so prevalent, would we not see it happening today?
Uh, well, we do. Over and over again, we observe adaptation shaping species and creating new ones. (Actually, it's adaptation plus reproductive isolation that splits off a new species from an old.)
There should be ample transitional forms in the fossil record; not only in the distant past but also in the relatively recant past. Nether exist.
Again, an outright falsehood. There are hundreds of transitional species, at every level of organization. Of course, what survives the best are the vertebrate transitionals, which you can learn about here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
To say that there are no transitional fossils is outright bizzare, and is as disconnected from reality as someone saying "there is no sun or moon." In fact, every single fossil represents a transitional species, except for those organisms that are the end of their ancestral line.
Life itself shows intelligence design.
In what way?
In a vary short time from now many of the resources we have now, even if they had never been touched, we degrade to the point that we could not use them. Take Crude oil for example.
Please, could you offer support for this assertion? As far as I know, our fossil fuel deposits are already millions of years old; this is the first I've heard of any kind of "expiry date." Do you believe that the oil companies know about this? Don't you think they'd be interested?
Seam to comprehend an existence beyond this universe — We see not indication that the land animals, sea mammals, fish, birds, or even insects have any idea, or even care, that there are things beyond our four dimensions of time and space.
I don't believe that even humans "comprehend" an existence beyond this one - rather, they've simply imagined one. Maybe the reason that the sea mammals don't seem too interested in that is because it's a manifestly stupid idea on the face of it.
Are capable of manipulating the environment around us to the degree that we have manipulated it.
You posited this as a fundamental difference; it can't be both a fundamental difference and a difference of degree. Differences of degrees, by definition, are not fundamental differences.
As it is there is enough to sustain our civilization until the Creator comes and closes shop on this universe.
How do you know? How much fossil fuel do you think there is?
The Creator introduced mankind in to this universe precisely at the right time so that we would have an abundance of materials to work with when we needed them.
Or, more likely, humans are adaptable, and based their technologies on what was around. Had something else been around, our technology would have been based on that. In particular, I have great difficulty believing that an intelligent creator couldn't have come up with a fuel less polluting, better distributed, and easier to obtain than fossil fuels. The fact that fossil fuel has so many critical disadvantages is considerable evidence against its placement by intelligent benefactors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by JRTjr, posted 10-22-2004 1:42 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-16-2005 10:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 331 (151862)
10-22-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminNosy
10-22-2004 2:17 AM


I'll be a bit cranky if anyone does.
Oops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 2:17 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 331 (176561)
01-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RED WOLF
01-13-2005 1:11 PM


The babylonians who are totally not christian have a series of tablets, that are the oldest piece of written work on earth, that tell of a story that states on tablet 11 that there was indeed a global flood.
But the Gilgameian flood is different than the Noaic flood. And since these tablets predate the Bible, if you were going to believe in a flood, why would you believe the Bible over the Babylonians?
Along with many many other remote tribal stories that tell of a Global flood.
Did you look where these tribes all live? I'll give you a hint - they live near where it floods. Coincidence? You decide.
As well as speaking of fossils they have found fossils on top of mountains worldwide hinting that the water level was once that high.
Or that the mountains were lower. They do still teach plate tectonics in school, don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RED WOLF, posted 01-13-2005 1:11 PM RED WOLF has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 331 (180285)
01-24-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 4:58 PM


This is the best method because it shows the views of all religions without breaking the first amendment.
Except for the polytheists, the animists, and the positive (not agnostic) atheists.
But nobody gives a fuck about them, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 4:58 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by robinrohan, posted 01-24-2005 6:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 331 (580976)
09-12-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by JRTjr
09-12-2010 6:27 PM


Re: ‘creator’ not a reference to the Christian God.
However, It is a Federal Government document
It can't be a "Federal Government" document since it predates the existence of the US Federal Government by a decade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2010 6:27 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by JRTjr, posted 11-02-2010 9:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024