If we are all descended from Noah ...

quote:

---

Quetzal, please tell me then why you were attracted to a forum labelled "If we are all descended from Noah ..."? It is obviously a thread concerning Bible apologetics, yet you find the subject "unutterably boring", inexplicably present and commenting.

---

Although somewhat irrelevant, I'll satisfy your curiosity. This thread had at one point an interesting argument concerning population genetic bottlenecks in which I participated. That issue has apparently been dropped. However, "hope oft springs eternal", hence my continuing to read the thread. In addition, you have made several interesting assertions, but rather than derail the thread any further, I forbore to comment. Again, I'm content to wait until you are prepared to discuss the scientific side of the equation.

quote:

---

Thanks for the invite. Ya'll sho sound hospitable enough. I might just kick mah shoes off and sit a spell.

---

I doubt you will find me all that hospitable. Civil, perhaps - that very much depends on you. It's interesting that we are on opposite sides on so many levels - even your current profession. To someone who spent a great deal of time working on ecology, conservation biology, environmental baseline and land-use studies, as well as other issues relating to halting the destruction of, or developing rational use patterns in, rapidly vanishing Central American forests, the idea of a timber broker is unlikely to engender joy.It promises to be a very interesting discussion.

[Meaningless apologetic crap deleted][This message has been edited by nos482, 09-23-2002]

Quetzal: I doubt you will find me all that hospitable. Civil, perhaps - that very much depends on you. It's interesting that we are on opposite sides on so many levels - even your current profession. To someone who spent a great deal of time working on ecology, conservation biology, environmental baseline and land-use studies, as well as other issues relating to halting the destruction of, or developing rational use patterns in, rapidly vanishing Central American forests, the idea of a timber broker is unlikely to engender joy.WS: Messed up facts there, for they are not vanishing, except around densely populated areas for housing. Central American forests are more extensive now than ever before. The climax for the central US ecozones is mostly plains vegetation and scrub trees if left alone. Wild, ranging and very frequent fires once kept forestation to a minimum, favoring vast expanses of grassy vegetation, which is the destiny of any forest left to nature, except bottomland hardwoods. They figured out the only way to have forests was to conserve, not preserve, and replant where forests declined for whatever reason. Now the growth of forestation has gotten to the point there won't be enough mills to process the growth coming on, and the demand is dropping because of imports and alternative materials anyway. Foresters manage ecosystems for perpetuation of the resources, practice conservation biology, perform those same studies to formulate better management plans, and carry on a host of other scientific exercises that made the forests what they are today, vast expanses of practically untouched restored wonders. Take a plane anywhere and try to find an open field to land in. Most of them are forested now, to the point quail hunting is almost a relic of the past. Your efforts were misguided, for the agenda moved onward anyway. Now I benefit from all those summers working for the Forest Service learning how to estimate stumpage and mark trees for harvest. I find people who have inherited those forests, show them how much timber is falling and rotting every year ($50-$200 worth per acre per year in mature timber, determined simply by scaling the trees on the ground that fell this year alone), and contract with them to thin for recovery of value being lost and make residual trees healthier. The people I've served the past 20 years still have beautiful, fully stocked forests with trees of all age classes, and healthy. All of them are now game refuges or hunting clubs that have game running them over. Deer, wild turkey, squirrels, bear, feral hogs, non-game birds, you name it, they flourish. Creeks running through are cleaned up by the filtering of the forest.
Their grandchildren and their children will enjoy the same high income off the land ($220-$375 per acre per year average perpetually), plus the side benefits and values added to their community, as long as there is a local market. So who needs tree huggers? God made all that for man to use, and use it we will. I make them rich, and am blessed with a great business that is very satisfying.What's vanishing? Forests in other countries that are trying to capitalize on the American market demand for imports. So-called ecologists have severely damaged national timber production, shutting down mills, putting extreme pressure on countries having no problems with ecologists. The result is deforestation of rain forests to grow the stuff for Americans that ought to be grown right here. We closed down our oil fields to clean up the environments, but turn your backs on vast areas of earth suffering from having to make up the difference. Ever seen pictures of the environment outside the US, say the oil fields of Mexico, S. America, and their coastline oli wells polluting the oceans? Blame it on the ecologists 'saving America'. At least here we had the money and technology, laws, and public interest to work out pollution problems, but those controls are not there. You chased it all down there, and now the earth IS in the balance there, eventually threatening life as we know it here. But our natural resources professionals are doing the best of what can be done HERE, whether there is a furture market for it or not.

quote:

---

WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue.

---

Let's pretend that you said 'faulty analogy' since that is the fallacy your describe.

quote:

---

I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about.

---

Not a problem.

quote:

---

If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with.

---

Problem. This sentence and your previous sentence are not compatible. The first denies that polls have any bearing on what is actual fact. The second sentence sneaks the idea back into the machinery.You ARE using polls to determine a proper course of action, which is why my analogy is valid and not faulty. It is the same argument you use but with different values in key places. This is allowable. In both cases a public poll is used to determine a course of action. Perhaps I should substitute a disease such as cancer in place of an auto accident, because that takes away the sense of urgency. Otherwise, it is the same argument. I am not surprised that you object. But it is your formulation. You constructed the 'course of action via popular poll'.

quote:

---

It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms.

---

You are again asking that theories be included for no other reason than public opinion. How can you on one hand make a statement like this and on the other claim that public opinion has nothing to do with what is true? It doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

Your scenario makes taking the advice of the professionals equal to a life or death choice, using an example of an injury to a child where there is no reasonable alternative but to seek medical help.

---

Ah.... I see. This is an emotional reaction to the life-or-death aspect of the analogy. Break it down into symbols. Put letters in there for the actual values. It is the same argument.

quote:

---

WS: The point is you expect standards to apply to others but not yourself.

---

What? Where did that come from?

quote:

---

It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.

---

And this is an argument for your position?

quote:

---

You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with?

---

No. Any creation scientist may come up with good data at time and is welcome to present it, but creationism as a science is ridiculous.

quote:

---

what logic lies in the automatic rejection of opinions when science-based opinion is linked up with religion in a manner that just shows agreement between their professional opinion and what the Bible says?

---

No logic at all, but I have never seen a case as you describe. Creation scientists don't point out consistencies with the Bible and science, they MANUFACTURE them-- usually by mutilating the science, and often the Bible as well.

quote:

---

It appears to me valid science fact is disregarded if it agrees with the Bible.

---

It isn't, IMO. There simply isn't much that does agree.

quote:

---

If that is acceptable, then western civilization should reject any laws on the books that agree with the Bible laws on the basis of the existence of agreement, not considering the merits of the laws in place.

---

Agreeing with the Bible is not grounds for discounting anything. As you said, merits must be considered. Nor is agreement with the Bible grounds for implementing anything, and these grounds are the only grounds creationists (mostly, in this country) have for their science.

quote:

---

As to supportability of a belief, certainly almost any belief can be supported scientifically if enough effort is expended, though it should be admitted there are avenues of research that are ignored because certain paths could support competing perspectives.

---

No it can't. That's the thing about science. Science appeals ultimately to things over which we have no control. That is why it works so well as a path to knowledge.

quote:

---

Note that within narrow science fields like paleontology, biological systematics professionals are at odds with that crowd, and some paleontologists don't agree with each other.

---

Oh my GOD!!!!! Really?????

quote:

---

If what they regard as immutable fact were just that, there would be no rift among those professionals.

---

I have never made this claim.

quote:

---

The reason there is disparity of beliefs is those beliefs are just that- beliefs-based on other beliefs, based on interpretations of data. The arguments are obviously over interpretations and conclusions, not the data. Faulty data is easily discovered and deleted, while the opinions born of such data can last beyond reason.

---

The reason there is a disparity of beliefs is that we are fallible creatures dealing with incomplete data. Big surprise. But because of this we need to include incomplete and self-contradictory-- in the absense of miraculous events-- theories with no supporting evidence-- in the absense of miraculous events-- in the classroom?

quote:

---

I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science. You are still confusing the issue. Or you have the belief that schools should teach whatever the general public wants, true or not. I hadn't thought of that. Is this your position?

​

WS: That is a fatal flaw if you are serious about defending evolution-only teaching in classrooms. Public opinion could easily arise to totally exclude evolution, regardless its truths. Creation science NEEDS evolution around as a whipping boy.

---

What? Is this relevant? Does this even address the point raised? Tired, perhaps, of addressing the issues?

quote:

---

But I have read articles from respected scientists that doubt evolution, yet they refuse to speculate on alternative explanations of origin of species.

---

Wanna point one out?

quote:

---

What I can say with confidence is that probably none of those students are prepared to deal with creationist theory, having only learned a little about evolution, easily thwarted by arguments that obviously engender great doubt and confusion for the holder of evolution-only knowledge.

---

You are probably right about students with only cursory knowledge of evolution being unable to deal with creationist theory. This is sad, since with moderate knowledge of evolutionary theory, creationist argument looks like raging idiocy.This says a lot about the state of education in the US, but we don't disagree that it stinks.What is curious is the implicit, at least, argument that we must include creationism in the curriculum so that students know how the deal with it when encountered. I have a hard time believing that you are serious. It strikes me as just another ploy to justify putting your faith in the classroom.

quote:

---

The current practice would be about equal to only presenting students with Amarican history with no mention of world history; only fiction novels to the exclusion of biographies in English-Lit.

---

This is the proper form of a false analogy. You have a history and a history. Both of these are factual (more or less). You have a novel and a biography, both of which rightly belong in English class. To these you compare a science with a not-a-science. See the difference?

quote:

---

One reason equal treatment must be resisted is that evolutionists fear the students will relate to and believe that which they oppose.

---

For me, I feel the schools are quite good at producing inferior education that we do not need to add more crap to the menu.

quote:

---

Those so affected won't be able to study it out enough to reverse the beliefs they formed, being beyond their active education phase of life.

---

Like hell.

quote:

---

I would point out that of the scientists that stick to their specialty, few are able to contend with scientists knowledgeable in multiple fields, accounting for the recent decade of serious debate losses by the best that evolutionists had to pit against creationists.

---

LOL... though I have never witnessed a debate in person, I have read a few transcripts. For your sake, lets hope those few were not a representative sample.

quote:

---

WS: Then you are either biased or not paying attention.

---

I have read every article posted to this board by creationists. And the topic has interested me since childhood, literally. You cannot accuse me of not paying attention, and, really, it is much more interested when someone tell me I am wrong than when someone agrees.

quote:

---

WS: Then you think your own "digging" is a suitable substitute for higher education in particular science fields mixed with years of practice and research and peer review?

---

I think it is all I've got.By the way, this is a continuation of the ad hominem fallacy. It is not the person but the argument that matters. Have I discounted you for your lack of education in some field or other? Have I even asked?

quote:

---

I would think the best of your opinions would be but a shadow of what is really available.

---

Ad hominem. An attempt to discredit me? Feels like it. It always seems to come to this though.

quote:

---

I prefer to rest on the opinions of people who've paid the high price to be considered scientists whose opinions are more learned.

---

Not according to your previous posts.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-23-2002]

I agree completely. Polls are irrelevant to the issue of Creationism in public schools. First, religious tenets can't be taught there no matter how great the majoriy, which is why we have the Seperation of Church and State. The only way the majority can oppress the minority in this way is through a constitutional amendment. I don't see that happening any time soon.Secondly public opinion does not decide what tenets of science are correct. If that were true then we'd probably be living in a geocentric solar system.Finally even if public opinion were in favor of it and it were legal, including Creationism would make no sense because elementary science courses are intended to teach what happens in the scientific community. This is essential so that (1) students can better comprehend society (2) tax payers can understand the value of science. There is no reason that Creationism should be given 'equal time' in science classrooms when it is not being discussed in the scientific community.

[QUOTE][B]WS: Messed up facts there, for they are not vanishing, except around densely populated areas for housing. Central American forests are more extensive now than ever before. The climax for the central US ecozones is mostly plains vegetation and scrub trees if left alone. [/QUOTE][/B]I suspect that the 'Central America' Quetzal is refering to is that heavily forested tropical region south of Mexico and north of South America, consisting of such nations as Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.I suspect that the region you are refering to must be the great, unplundered wildlands of Oklahoma, Kansas, eastern Texas, and Nebraska.There is something of an ecological, geographic, and cultural distinction between these two "Central Americas".

Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America.It is interesting, however, that he immediately lumped our work in with the radical environmentalist idiots in the US with his/her ignorant cracks about "so-called ecologists" etc. Nothing like jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Must have hit a sore spot. It's even more funny when I think how many times my group opposed the same idiots...I even got death threats from one group (out of Vermont, IIRC) once.OTOH, I've heard the exact same argument from timber poachers and so-called "factors" in Nicaragua who managed to convince ignorant campesinos that it was okay to clear cut primary forest. After all, God put those useless trees there just for humans to exploit.

Quetzal: "Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America."WS: I eliminated that 'Central America' as the subject since a 'timber buyer' in Arkansas was castigated, yet Quetzal admits the practice of forestry in central USA is "rather good". I think you have to admit also there is discontinuity in the last two posts, since there is no lasting success for forestry without a market for wood products which funds forestry practice, requiring buyers who use it or sell it to another user. Since the problem of clearcutting/ deforestation (net loss) is dramatically exemplified in Central America, why make the comments linking my business to something dreaded? I'm part of the success story in the USA, directly responsible for net gain and improvement of over 230 thousand of acres of American forest.

gene: "I agree completely. Polls are irrelevant to the issue of Creationism in public schools. First, religious tenets can't be taught there no matter how great the majoriy, which is why we have the Seperation of Church and State. The only way the majority can oppress the minority in this way is through a constitutional amendment. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Secondly public opinion does not decide what tenets of science are correct. If that were true then we'd probably be living in a geocentric solar system.WS: The geocentric issue was settled long before evolution or creation science came up. You need to get over that error promoted by the scientists of that time. It wasn't the general public that formulated that theory. In fact, you make the case for public distrust in purely science interpretations in the classroom. You use too many strawman arguments. The Church did support that science theory centuries ago, but that doesn't imply the Church now supports fallacies such as "flat earth", which the Bible does not teach. If you insist on disparaging the Church over that past mistake of taking the wrong side, bent towards taking the wrong side today, then the supposed endorsement by the most populous sect, RCC, taking sides with evolution mut be an indication they chose the wrong side out of habit. But what the RCC has o say about it has no bearing on the balance of the Church. The pope does not speak for them. If you would go read their official statements, you will find they are actually opposed to the notion of human evolution, remaining neutral about evolution of plants and animals. Just run a search on "evolution" in the Catholic Encyclopedia at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: HomeIt is fact that opponents of teaching of anything related to the Bible or Christianity rarely if ever complain over the latest inclusion of Islamic studies in public school curiculum to the exclusion of Christianity. Even the ACLU remained silent, proving bias against only one religion. Any other appears acceptable. That sort of bias only timulates Christians to rethink the net effects of blind tolerance. The result is Christians rising up immediately and putting the Bible and prayer to the God of the Bible back in public schools. It probably wouldn't have been attempted without that cause.The phrase "separation of church and state" was only used by T. Jeferson when he addressed a group of preachers concerned the new Republic might adversely affect them by favoring Presbyterians. The principle of not favoring any religion was explained to their satisfaction. Had he told them they would have nothing to do concerning accountability of government, separated out as a group, they would have resisted the new Repulblic. The phrase is nowhere used or referred to in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. A
The only restriction is two-fold: There would be no official church such as in England; the exercise of religion within the several states would not be hindered. Reading the papers of the founding fathers supports that interpretation. It is the opponents of Christianity who siezed upon the phrase, taking it out of the context of one speech, reversing the intent of the law. The US Supreme Court has corrected that interpretation, protecting the exercise of religion, which cannot legally be prohibited in any public school in any state. Wherever religion is hindered, there are Christian legal institutes who bring successful tort reversing those attempts. Those cases are decling as school officials learn the facts.There is no mandate in law to prohibit any teaching of religious tenets. Even if creation science was pure religion, it couldn't be hindered if offered voluntarily.Public opinion is a very powerful force. The only way to change a religious opinion is to convince people they are wrong. Some on these threads attempt to prove the Bible in error, failing to convince. Some attempt to prove there is no valid science associated with creation science, yet the latest great debates that went on for a decade were decidedly won by creation science debaters. Since then professional evolutionists avoid public debates, leaving that to their fan club. Why?gene: "Finally even if public opinion were in favor of it and it were legal, including Creationism would make no sense because elementary science courses are intended to teach what happens in the scientific community. This is essential so that (1) students can better comprehend society (2) tax payers can understand the value of science. There is no reason that Creationism should be given 'equal time' in science classrooms when it is not being discussed in the scientific community."WS: Creation is avoided in the bulk of the scientific community because they were taught that way. How could a student better comprehend society by continuing the practice of ignoring a significant segment of it? What you say there is like saying we should keep students away from knowledge of corporate crime since hardly any of them would become CEO's, fewer still who would be corrupt CEO's. There are many other possible examples that would show your reasoning is flawed. Want some more?
Christians are tax-payers too. Why do you suppose they would want their children trained up to be taught on their nickel there is no value of creation science in society when there are and have been many prominent scientists supporting creation science? The issue is most definitely part of our society, and it would be reasonable to equip students to grasp all of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Quetzal: "Thanks gene - you're correct. Most of my work was in Nicaragua, with occasional "cross-border" forays into Costa Rica (Guanacaste). I was all set to jump down his/her throat until I realized s/he was rambling on about the US. Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good - in fact we used some of the techniques and practices first developed there. Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America."

​

WS: I eliminated that 'Central America' as the subject since a 'timber buyer' in Arkansas was castigated, yet Quetzal admits the practice of forestry in central USA is "rather good". I think you have to admit also there is discontinuity in the last two posts, since there is no lasting success for forestry without a market for wood products which funds forestry practice, requiring buyers who use it or sell it to another user. Since the problem of clearcutting/ deforestation (net loss) is dramatically exemplified in Central America, why make the comments linking my business to something dreaded? I'm part of the success story in the USA, directly responsible for net gain and improvement of over 230 thousand of acres of American forest.

---

What a very odd post. I never castigated "timber buyer in Arkansas" as a specific example of odious practice. I also never mentioned that timber buying was one of the practices I was in favor of. I did, however, mention contacts with timber factors and "buyers" in Central America who were less than scrupulous about the tactics they used to obtain wood. Interesting that you feel there is a direct parallel. Guilty conscience?As to my comment concerning forestry management, I obviously was unclear: "fairly good" in my post was a qualifier referring to US Government Forest Service practices for conservation and land management, some of which we were able to adopt and use. It had nothing to do with private sector brokers. You really should work on your reading comprehension, especially if you expect to discuss the details of the relative scientific merits of evolutionary biology and creationism at some point.Are you finished derailing this thread, now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The geocentric issue was settled long before evolution or creation science came up. You need to get over that error promoted by the scientists of that time. It wasn't the general public that formulated that theory.

---

Geocentrism stretches far further back in time than anything that could be called science. The idea is a pretty blatantly obvious one if you live on a few hundred acres of ground, as have your ancestors for generations. The point is that the Church cannonized Aristotle's reason's -- good one's actually, given his data -- for a geocentric universe and kept the idea alive for 1500 years past its prime. Quite a few civilizations had heliocentrism figured out long before the idea caught on in the west. The Greeks were one of them, just not Saint Aristotle.

quote:

---

In fact, you make the case for public distrust in purely science interpretations in the classroom.

---

Based partially on your premise that science kept geocentrism alive, which I dispute. But besides that, faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data? That makes no sense.Also interesting is your wording. ".... distrust in purely scientific interpretations...." Sounds like an admission that your position isn't scientific.

quote:

---

You use too many strawman arguments.

---

Cute catch phrase, but you don't understand it.

quote:

---

The Church did support that science theory centuries ago, but that doesn't imply the Church now supports fallacies such as "flat earth", which the Bible does not teach.

---

Is this position you argue against not analogous to your implicit argument that since science has been wrong before we should distrust it? Perhaps you do not intend this argument but several claims you've made imply it.

quote:

---

Even the ACLU remained silent, proving bias against only one religion. Any other appears acceptable.

---

The ACLU does not speak for me.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]Forestry management practice in the US is actually rather good [/QUOTE][/B]That's good because I'm close to the practice (in a familial sense) Too bad we have essentially no old-growth forests. [QUOTE][B]Of course, the threat is completely different in Central America.[/QUOTE][/B]Primary cause there is the attempt (by economical necessity) to grow crops in soil as fertile as pavement, right? [QUOTE][B]After all, God put those useless trees there just for humans to exploit.[/QUOTE][/B]That's one of religion's (and political conservatism's) dark sides.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The geocentric issue was settled long before evolution or creation science came up. You need to get over that error promoted by the scientists of that time. It wasn't the general public that formulated that theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Geocentrism stretches far further back in time than anything that could be called science. The idea is a pretty blatantly obvious one if you live on a few hundred acres of ground, as have your ancestors for generations. The point is that the Church cannonized Aristotle's reason's -- good one's actually, given his data -- for a geocentric universe and kept the idea alive for 1500 years past its prime. Quite a few civilizations had heliocentrism figured out long before the idea caught on in the west. The Greeks were one of them, just not Saint Aristotle.WS: The Church took it up because there was no other science explanation they knew about. The continuosly attempted to just settle such matters to end specualtion and get on with other things. The RCC, representing the branch of the Church that did that, continues to take that position. They are officially neutral as far as which belief catholics are to accept. They are not to argue those who disagree. They do stop at the issue of human evolution, denyig the possibility. Notice that when the centrist views faded away, replaced with ever increasing advanced ideas from better data, they didn't jump sides. It was settled as far as they were concerned until forced to yield on the geocentrism centuries later.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: In fact, you make the case for public distrust in purely science interpretations in the classroom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Based partially on your premise that science kept geocentrism alive, which I dispute. But besides that, faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data? That makes no sense.Also interesting is your wording. ".... distrust in purely scientific interpretations...." Sounds like an admission that your position isn't scientific.WS: You dispute that Aristotle and his disciples were not scientists in their day? Do you know the definition of science/scientist? The Church simply endorsed their belief, not originating or preaching it. They allowed it to be considered "fact", not opposing it as heretical. Had they decided it was heresy, they would have killed the idea and anyone holding on to it.Your "faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data?" attempts to have arguing for creationist data/conclusions, which you believe baseless, permissible on the basis of Aristotle's misinterpretation of data and lack of proper observation being accepted? Maybe I need to post some advice given by several evolution icons over the years who warn about assuming those things of creationists. Not heeding those warnings from the 'high priests' of evolution resulted in losing a decade of debates against creationists. The data is there, valid, and the conclusions are strong. It is weakness to simply deny belief in those facts simply because they agree with the Bible, which so many evolutionists reject without evidence or proper foundation to justify rejection.Now for your last line above. Thereare many scientists and other professionals who believe very strongly there are at leasttwo ways to regard the world around us. Some say it is all in the mind, that this doesn't really exist, that nobody can prove anything exists, that all of it is just thought, or maybe not even thought, but just a passing flicker of something called "life" or "energy". There are several 'religions' and phiolsophical theories centered around such notions. The other end of the spectrum is the people who believe everything simply is, that it just sprang up as matter that is undeniably real, moved around by energy, measureable, purposeless, a pure accident that began when time came into existence. Some scientists perform a role as 'priest' over that WYSIWYG realm, they alone able to explain it all to the commoners, making sense of everything that is, putting it into perspective, relating people to that great cosmic accident as having come out of it from the most primordial of organism.Then there is a third group somewhere in the middle that puts that all together, that the mind of God did envision all that is, brought all that was in His mind into a reality that can be felt, seen, touched. They find purpose in all that is, that all that is is because God had a plan. Some (creation) scientists approach all that is from a different point of view, looking at what is from the point of view revealed by the God who made it. They find all that is is measureable, can be observed, and can conclude some things about what they see on the basis of what God said those conclusions should resemble. He left it up to them to come up with the details, but spotted them the clues they needed to observe and conclude rightly. We are all observing the same things that are, but approach them from different perspectives. Since you cannot disprove the Bible accounts you cannot rightly say creationists are wrong in their initial premise. Many 'creation' scientists begin with the belief of the creation account, then move on beyond reliance on that to trictly science method, being more accurately labelled anti-evolutionists. Whatever that makes them phiolsophically is of no concern to them, and should not be to anyone else as long as they present their learned opinions in terms of science and not religion. So it is that when they present papers amongtheir science peers, they can omit any reference to religion as though they are agnostic, but when they present on a Christian website they can let their hair down and relate their opinions to coincidences of the biblical accounts. hen they do that they are castigated, thrown aside by evolutionists as deluded fools believing the "lie". But we know the Bible reports the fools are those who deny there is a God, that call that which is holy evil. I fear for them.quote:quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church did support that science theory centuries ago, but that doesn't imply the Church now supports fallacies such as "flat earth", which the Bible does not teach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Is this position you argue against not analogous to your implicit argument that since science has been wrong before we should distrust it? Perhaps you do not intend this argument but several claims you've made imply it.WS: As to that I think it would be supremely foolish for mankind to rule out any perspective for which there is no conclusive proof for or against. There is no logic in rejecting religion, especially that of the Bible, which is verified in so many ways. What yu seem to promote is that people are better off as non-integrated persons, rather than integrted persons. Trying to keep all the modules of life in separate little "boxes" that are never connected or inter-related isn't natural or healthy. My goals in life should be accountable to other values such as entertainment, my profession, politics, personal interests, religion, sexual preferences, and each of those inter dependent/accountable with one another. Integration of values prevents multiple standards tha generate uncertain behavior. For instance, I should weigh my choices of entertainment with my profession and goals in life. It wouldn't be appropriate or wise for me to choose to go to bars with nudity and other activities that compromise my goals in life, possibly ruining my profession should peers find me there, or should I be swept up in a sting, name in the newspaper. I integrate all my life values, and happen to place my religion in the center, integrating everythng directly to that as well as other values integrating with each other. That prevents chaos and destruction, preserving my place of trust in the community.But what I'm getting from you and others is that we should keep it all separate, similar to the belief one should be allowed to behave any way they want since there should be no connection to other values. You take a non-integrated approach to education. Science has nothing to do with other values learned? I believe science should be integrated as much as possible with other subjects, including religion, to give science depth of meaning besides just facts to be memorized, soon forgotten. What isn't integrated in those formative years is too remote to be valued enough to retain it.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the ACLU remained silent, proving bias against only one religion. Any other appears acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The ACLU does not speak for me.WS: I'm happy. But the fact remains that the ACLU has been a powerful force in campaigning against Christianity in America, tolerant of any other belief, championing efforts to exclude creation science from classrooms simply because it infers Christianity and the Bible, their position not based on merits of the science.

"Too bad we have essentially no old-growth forests."You don't know where they are? There are many, but so remote the average person can't enjoy hem, especially considering Clinton's road reduction program that has made even more of them invisible. There are many private holdings of forest as mature as it can get. I've walked "old growth" northwestern forests that can get just so old, then they begin to die off and become brushlands. Some "old growth" virgin forest was set aside in the Delta Nat. Forest, but now the area is almost impenetrable, taken over by brush covering mounds of fallen trees rotting. National forests harbor many old growth forests, except for where environmentalist policy required allowing forest fire to destroy them, like in Yellowstone. What most people think of as beautiful, fern strewn, open ground ancient forests in America are what foresters continuously make them to be through many silvicultural practices. Left to nature they deteriorate to open grasslands via wildfires, or brushlands not even preferred by most animals. Dense brushlands don't produce much food near the ground due to lack of sunlight on the ground. It takes frequent openings in the forest canopy to keep those picturesque visions of primordial forests fresh in our minds. Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's the way it is.

quote:

---

WS: The Church took it up because there was no other science explanation they knew about.

---

This really isn't true, WS, as I stated in my previous post. Other cultures had it worked out.

quote:

---

WS: You dispute that Aristotle and his disciples were not scientists in their day?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Do you know the definition of science/scientist?

---

Thank you for the thinly veiled insult. I very much enjoy such things. Yes, I know what science is and I do not think the term applies to Aristotle. Parts of the definition fits, but not the whole.

quote:

---

Your "faulty conclusions based on data are arguments for including conclusions based on no data?" attempts to have arguing for creationist data/conclusions, which you believe baseless, permissible on the basis of Aristotle's misinterpretation of data and lack of proper observation being accepted?

---

What?

quote:

---

Thereare many scientists and other professionals who believe very strongly there are at least two ways to regard the world around us.

---

I could come up with more than two, but I'll skip down a bit.

quote:

---

Some (creation) scientists approach all that is from a different point of view, looking at what is from the point of view revealed by the God who made it.

---

And in so doing it ceases to be science. Thanks for 'fessing up.

quote:

---

They find all that is is measureable, can be observed, and can conclude some things about what they see on the basis of what God said those conclusions should resemble.

---

Which is very bad science...This is not the same as drawing up a testable hypothesis and then testing it. This is drawing up a conclusion and then manipulating the tests to prove it. It is the same flaw creationists profess to find in evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

He left it up to them to come up with the details, but spotted them the clues they needed to observe and conclude rightly.

---

And suppose the clues lead in the wrong direction? Suppose the observations conflict with the "right conclusions" oops! Sorry, the initial clues CAN'T be wrong. This is why it isn't science and is religion. The final result is set from the outset.

quote:

---

Since you cannot disprove the Bible accounts you cannot rightly say creationists are wrong in their initial premise.

---

And you cannot disprove that french fries from outer space are generating a force field that creates the perfect illuson that we live on a planet when actually we live in a frog's armpit.WS: As to that I think it would be supremely foolish for mankind to rule out any perspective for which there is no conclusive proof for or against.[/b][/quote]Right..... Pardon the skepticism but you aren't interested in "any perspective" but only in one particular perspective.

quote:

---

What yu seem to promote is that people are better off as non-integrated persons, rather than integrted persons. Trying to keep all the modules of life in separate little "boxes" that are never connected or inter-related isn't natural or healthy.

---

uh..... no..... deleting a lot of stuff that simply does not follow from anything else in the thread....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com