Help me with this
Connie
While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
to a meeting of the minds. Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
for eons? Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
a "creator"? It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't the
question be "Where are we going?"
and...@my-deja.com
The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
of "who we are." Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
kind? Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to apes?
We can't figure out "where are we going" without first figuring
out "who we are."
Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
from apes.
Andy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Boikat
First things first: The main problem with
reconciling the science of evolution (an every
other branch of science for that matter) is that
science can only deal with that which can be
tested in some way. How can anyone test for the
existence af any "creator" of a supernatural
nature?
Boikat
Boikat
>
> In article <6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> nyli...@webtv.net (Connie) wrote:
> > Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
> > While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
> >
> > My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists"
> come
> > to a meeting of the minds. Is it not possible that the "uncaused
> first
> > cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it
> has
> > for eons? Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence
> of
> > a "creator"? It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
> > somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't
> the
> > question be "Where are we going?"
>
> The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
> of "who we are."
No. The question of "how life began" is a
straight forward question.
> Do we differ from apes merely in degree,
Yes and no, to a certain degree.
> or also in kind?
Well, we are a "kind" of ape, after all.
> Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to apes?
It doesn't always apply to apes either. Troops of
apes (And monkeys) have been known to "revolt"
against overly aggressive troop mates.
>
> We can't figure out "where are we going" without first figuring
> out "who we are."
Philosophical bullshit.
>
> Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> from apes.
Note that andy is full of crap also, and would
rather play word games. There are degrees of
similarities and degrees of differences between
humans and the other apes.
Boikat
WickedDyno
> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>
> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
> to a meeting of the minds.
Very simple. Creationists, by and large, lack a mind to meet with.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Adam Marczyk
news:6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>
> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
> to a meeting of the minds.
For two reasons:
1. The two sides basically refuse to compromise. Creationists generally
believe that to give ground on any of their beliefs would result in the
collapse of Christianity and a lawless, atheist world. They believe they are
defending God's truth. Scientists, on the other hand, refuse to admit that
creationism could be a valid scientific alternative to evolution because
it's not natural, not testable and is unsupported by empirical evidence.
2. And there's no reason why they should. The two sides in many respects are
polar opposites, so someone has to be right and someone wrong. If one side
argues that 2+2 = 4, and the other holds out for 2+2 = 6, the most sensible
solution is obviously not to compromise and agree that 2+2 will equal 5.
> Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
> cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
> for eons?
This is called theistic evolution, and most mainstream religious
denominations do adhere to it. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to see
it as an attempt to have it both ways inasmuch as many of them refuse to
believe that acceptance of evolution and belief in God can ever go
hand-in-hand.
> Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
> a "creator"?
For scientists, it's not. The idea of God is non-naturalistic and lies
outside the bounds of science. Evolution does not say there is a God, nor
does it say there isn't one; such an idea is not subject to empirical
validation. Creationists, however, attempt to twist science to prove the
existence of their interpretation of their denomination's view of God - as
to why, you'd have to ask them, but I strongly suspect that many
creationists are people of weak faith. They want science to prove their God
exists for them because they have difficulty trusting in that concept by
faith alone. There's also the evangelists who think convincing people of
creationism will help them win souls.
> It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
> somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't the
> question be "Where are we going?"
Indeed. But by studying our past, we may be able to get a better bead on
that.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> nyli...@webtv.net (Connie) wrote:
>> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
>> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>>
>> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists"
>come
>> to a meeting of the minds. Is it not possible that the "uncaused
>first
>> cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it
>has
>> for eons? Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence
>of
>> a "creator"? It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
>> somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't
>the
>> question be "Where are we going?"
>
>The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
>of "who we are."
no, its not. not at all. andy, who whores language like a $2 trick,
tries to sneak this equivalence under the tent door. 'who we are'
involves ALOT more than where we started. much more.
wf...@ptd.net
because creationists generally say evolution is wrong. they say its
unscientific. and they say creationism is science, but they never tell
us HOW creationism works. since the 1st business of science is to
explain HOW, creationism isnt science. and science has no opinion on a
'creator' but creationists want to FORCE science to take a position.
there can be no compromise because creationism bares NO relationship
to science at all.
drewmann
Connie wrote in message
<6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
>While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
What are you doing on Webtv then? (Little joke there, sorry, couldn't
resist!)
>
>My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
>to a meeting of the minds.
Rodney King: "Can't we all get along?" I hope, in his context, the
answer can someday be "Yes." However, in this case, "No." Here's why...
> Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
>cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
>for eons?
Evolution, by definition, cannot be planned. The crux of the whole thing
is that the mutations in the DNA and inherited traits of organisms are
accidental or random, and then sorted out through natural selection. If
the 'Creator' designed or planned these mutations, they are not random or
accidental.
Also if the Creator works this way, it is not a creator.
>Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
>a "creator"?
The creationists are the ones who insist on that. The study of evolution is
already, again by definition, outside the scope of disproving the
existence of a creator. It is an assumption of evolution that a creator has
nothing to do with it.
>It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
>somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't the
>question be "Where are we going?"
>
Look at all the cases where religious establishments have expended enormous
amounts of energy to prevent anyone from questioning the fundamental
assumptions of their power base. These questions were necessary. If the
Church had been successful in suppressing, say, astronomy, or biology,
where would we be now?
This is an insurmountable obstacle to compromise with the religious
establishment(s)...
Eby
It would appear that many creationists don't like the constraints that
evolution puts on a higher power and that it conflicts with a literal
translation of the Bible. Once you get past the literal translation there is
almost nothing except ignorance that would get in the way of "meeting of the
minds"
Bobby D. Bryant
> The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
> of "who we are."
Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
> Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
> kind? Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to apes?
Forgive my feebleness of mind, but don't I detect a non sequitur between
those two questions?
> Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> from apes.
Speak for yourself on that one.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> > Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
> > a "creator"?
>
> For scientists, it's not. The idea of God is non-naturalistic and lies
> outside the bounds of science.
IMO, if there is some cause for the natural world then it is within the bounds
of science, even if its name happens to be "God". If it can have any effect at
all on the natural world, then it's fair game for observation, hypothesis, and
prediction.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Pat James
(in message <3A73BB06...@bellsouth.net>):
Look for the sign saying "Worlds created while you wait".
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Pat James
(in message <950c4n$3r2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> In article <6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> nyli...@webtv.net (Connie) wrote:
>> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
>> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>>
>> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists"
> come
>> to a meeting of the minds. Is it not possible that the "uncaused
> first
>> cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it
> has
>> for eons? Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence
> of
>> a "creator"? It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
>> somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't
> the
>> question be "Where are we going?"
>
> The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
> of "who we are." Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
> kind?
Neither. We _are_ apes. Just with thiner hair and funny feet.
> Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to apes?
Yeppers. Or do you _really_ need me to give you a history of, oh, the 19th
century, to pick one randomly?
>
> We can't figure out "where are we going" without first figuring
> out "who we are."
You may be confused on that, but not everyone is.
>
> Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> from apes.
Wrongo. Humans _are_ apes. Chimps, actually. Want a banana? Ook.
Pat James
(in message
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-C0...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>):
> In article <6780-3A7...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> nyli...@webtv.net (Connie) wrote:
>
>> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
>> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>>
>> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
>> to a meeting of the minds.
>
> Very simple. Creationists, by and large, lack a mind to meet with.
That's _my_ line, damn it. Sheesh.
stev...@my-deja.com
one another. The old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists
(both of whom insist that science and scripture must be in agreement)
heap scorn on one another, the former because the latter cannot even
accept a figurative interpretation of Genesis to accomodate the
uncontroverted facts of the geological record, the latter because the
former cleave so selectively to scriptural authority over science. The
intelligent design crowd tries to stay out of the fray, because their
brand of creationism does not even demand that scripture be accurate
scientifically. Thus creationists are not even in agreement with
whether evolution must be rejected because it contradicts the Bible, or
because it contradicts some other aspect of their theology.
All these creationists object to the idea that natural processes,
acting in strict accord with natural laws, could have produced the
diversity of life on Earth. I think part of the reason, at least, is
that evolution requires that humans be joined inextricably to the rest
of life. There was no "first human;" whatever candidate you find had
parents approximately as human as he or she was. Human blends by
imperceptible degree back into the merely simian; creationists would
need to accept the "image of God" and "human soul" as things that could
be aquired in increments and possessed by varying degrees, not as razor-
sharp distinctions between human and animal kinds.
There are, of course, Christians (and other theists) who accept
evolution, though they vary in how they deal with the problem of the
preceding paragraph. I don't see, by the way, that accepting that God
works through evolution requires (or even permits) the conclusion that
the results of evolution were predetermined and preset from the very
beginning. It is the nature of evolution, at least as currently
understood, to be opportunistic, branching, contingent, and impossible
to predict in detail over long periods. If God chose to use such a
process, He might be expected to allow evolution to take its own
course, producing results not specifically programmed into it; nature
might have its own sort of free will (whatever, exactly, free will
might mean).
>
-- Steven J.
Tom McHale
Help me with this
Group: talk.origins Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 12:18am From:
nyli...@webtv.net (Connie)
> How can you know where you are going if you do not know where you have
been? Where is your frame of reference? <
The Termite of Temptation
> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>
> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
> to a meeting of the minds. Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
> cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
> for eons?
Then why bother believing the creator in the first place (unless you have
some deep emotional need that some all-powerful Father can somehow fill)? It
is possible. But we're trying to explain.
> Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
> a "creator"? It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
> somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began? Shouldn't the
> question be "Where are we going?"
It's part of what science is. As children we all ask questions. Why this,
why that, why do the stars only come out at night, why do we have
belly-button, why do we have to die? And strictly speaking, these questions
don't require answers. The critical question is that of education.
If we teach children creationism, we teach them sloppy thinking. We teach
them that they can believe what they want and deny the evidence. We teach
them to shut up, sit down and believe what they are told. We teach them they
are the centre of the universe, and that important processes like testing
hypotheses and perform experiments are not necessary.
If we teach children evolution, we teach them rationality and reason. We
teach them to ask questions and look for the answers. We teach them that
nothing, even religion, is above query. We teach them one of the most
beautiful and powerful theories ever developed.
It's not only that one theory is correct and one incorrect, the critical
thing is the kind of thinking they represent.
Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a closed
doctrine based on faith.
Duncan
--
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is
a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make
messes in the house."
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
and...@my-deja.com
"The Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If we teach children creationism, we teach them sloppy thinking. We
teach
> them that they can believe what they want and deny the evidence. We
teach
> them to shut up, sit down and believe what they are told. We teach
them they
> are the centre of the universe, and that important processes like
testing
> hypotheses and perform experiments are not necessary.
This is a cartoonish portrayal of religion. What religion is teaching
anyone that "they are the centre of the universe"?
> If we teach children evolution, we teach them rationality and reason.
We
> teach them to ask questions and look for the answers. We teach them
that
> nothing, even religion, is above query. We teach them one of the most
> beautiful and powerful theories ever developed.
So powerful that no can provide a meaningful definition
of "evolution", "natural selection", "neo-Darwinism", etc.?! So
powerful that it has to rely on hoaxes and censoring books (like
Behe's) and questions that criticize the theory?!
> It's not only that one theory is correct and one incorrect, the
critical
> thing is the kind of thinking they represent.
Close -- it's the hostility to religion that evolution attempts to
inculcate.
> Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a
closed
> doctrine based on faith.
Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
standards.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the
question
> > of "who we are."
>
> Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
You must be kidding if you think the question of "how life began" is
not linked to the question of "who we are".
> > Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
> > kind? Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to
apes?
>
> Forgive my feebleness of mind, but don't I detect a non sequitur
between
> those two questions?
Another example of misuse of terminology by an evolutionist. "Detect a
non sequitur between those two questions"??? Please.
> > Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> > world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> > from apes.
>
> Speak for yourself on that one.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Why are you living so close to the Bible Belt if you don't like it?
You could move to a fundamentalist-free society if you really wanted
to. Evidently you don't want to.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <CA2d6.4792$cD2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>
>
>> It's not only that one theory is correct and one incorrect, the
>critical
>> thing is the kind of thinking they represent.
>
>Close -- it's the hostility to religion that evolution attempts to
>inculcate.
which is typical of the paranoid lies creationism causes. andy's
really alot stupider than his brother, so andy can be forgiven these
intellectual crash and burns. most creationists have them. since most
christians, like the pope, accept evolution as science, its obvious
only the refugees from prozac make such statements like andy does.
>
>> Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a
>closed
>> doctrine based on faith.
>
>Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
>evaluations of it and its "evidence".
really? then why is creationism popular only among the bible thumper
set and nowhere else in the world?? is there some worldwide conspiracy
against southern right wing american christians??
That's why the Kansas Board of
>Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
>the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
>standards.
which is another lie. but andy's so deep in the bowels of the beast
his ears and eyes are covered with...well, that's another story...
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3A744DFA...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the
>question
>> > of "who we are."
>>
>> Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
>
>You must be kidding if you think the question of "how life began" is
>not linked to the question of "who we are".
the former is science. the latter is metaphysics. the 2 disciplines
are not linked. your bias causes you to THINK they are, but they're
not. and your bias insists they are linked because your cult beliefs
are considered science by their adherents, not unlike astrology, or
the cargo cult beliefs of other illiterate peasants.
at least, however, they have an excuse.
>
>> > Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
>> > kind? Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to
>apes?
>>
>> Forgive my feebleness of mind, but don't I detect a non sequitur
>between
>> those two questions?
>
>Another example of misuse of terminology by an evolutionist. "Detect a
>non sequitur between those two questions"??? Please.
where does evolution say it can determine what is right or wrong in
morality?? please be so kind as to tell us...other, of course, than
your feeble minded cult beliefs.
Boikat
>
> In article <CA2d6.4792$cD2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "The Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > If we teach children creationism, we teach them sloppy thinking. We
> teach
> > them that they can believe what they want and deny the evidence. We
> teach
> > them to shut up, sit down and believe what they are told. We teach
> them they
> > are the centre of the universe, and that important processes like
> testing
> > hypotheses and perform experiments are not necessary.
>
> This is a cartoonish portrayal of religion. What religion is teaching
> anyone that "they are the centre of the universe"?
Almost all of them.
>
> > If we teach children evolution, we teach them rationality and reason.
> We
> > teach them to ask questions and look for the answers. We teach them
> that
> > nothing, even religion, is above query. We teach them one of the most
> > beautiful and powerful theories ever developed.
>
> So powerful that no can provide a meaningful definition
> of "evolution", "natural selection", "neo-Darwinism", etc.?!
Definition were provided for those terms.
Apparently they did not match up with your private
definitions, or you are being a roll again.
> So
> powerful that it has to rely on hoaxes and censoring books (like
> Behe's) and questions that criticize the theory?!
Evolution does not rely on hoaxes, and behe's book
is intellectually lazy, and a poor example of how
science is conducted.
>
> > It's not only that one theory is correct and one incorrect, the
> critical
> > thing is the kind of thinking they represent.
>
> Close -- it's the hostility to religion that evolution attempts to
> inculcate.
If there is any "hostility" being inculcated, it's
the hostility of religion towards science that is
being pushed, and created, by the religious side
of the fence. *THEY* are the ones who are
objecting and campaigning against real science,
and part of their strategy is to demonize science.
>
> > Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a
> closed
> > doctrine based on faith.
>
> Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> evaluations of it and its "evidence".
Bullshit. Please present some of this "evidence"
that can survive true scientific scrutiny, and
would cause acceptance of evolution ot
"collapse". Put up, or shut up.
> That's why the Kansas Board of
> Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> standards.
Are you lying deliberately, or is in habitual?
Boikat
Boikat
>
> In article <3A744DFA...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the
> question
> > > of "who we are."
> >
> > Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
>
> You must be kidding if you think the question of "how life began" is
> not linked to the question of "who we are".
>
You must be kidding if you think it is. Unless
you are attempting to engage in a middle school
philosophical debate.
> > > Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
> > > kind? Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to
> apes?
> >
> > Forgive my feebleness of mind, but don't I detect a non sequitur
> between
> > those two questions?
>
> Another example of misuse of terminology by an evolutionist. "Detect a
> non sequitur between those two questions"??? Please.
>
> > > Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> > > world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> > > from apes.
> >
> > Speak for yourself on that one.
> >
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
>
> Why are you living so close to the Bible Belt if you don't like it?
> You could move to a fundamentalist-free society if you really wanted
> to. Evidently you don't want to.
What a dumbassed comment.
Boikat
ghos...@my-deja.com
> > Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a
> closed
> > doctrine based on faith.
> Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
> Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> standards.
>
An unsupported conclusion based on an unsupported assertion. Not bad
Michael L. Siemon
+ This is a cartoonish portrayal of religion. What religion is teaching
+ anyone that "they are the centre of the universe"?
Yours.
Dick C.
>and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A744DFA...@mail.utexas.edu>,
>> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the
>> question
>> > > of "who we are."
>> >
>> > Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
>>
>> You must be kidding if you think the question of "how life began" is
>> not linked to the question of "who we are".
>>
>
>You must be kidding if you think it is. Unless
>you are attempting to engage in a middle school
>philosophical debate.
This is Andy you are talking to.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Bobby D. Bryant
> boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat) wrote:
>
> >You must be kidding if you think it is. Unless
> >you are attempting to engage in a middle school
> >philosophical debate.
>
> This is Andy you are talking to.
Are you suggesting that we should be saying "elementary school philosophy"
rather than "middleschool philosophy"?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> In article <3A744DFA...@mail.utexas.edu>,
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the
> question
> > > of "who we are."
> >
> > Maybe in a middleschool philosophy club.
>
> You must be kidding if you think the question of "how life began" is
> not linked to the question of "who we are".
The careful reader will notice that you have already changed your assertion
-- after a single turn in the discussion. Your original "surrogate for"
has already been reduced to merely "linked to". What will you be claiming
*next* time your turn comes up?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
> Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> standards.
Collapsed so hard that the citizens of Kansas voted the shysters out and
re-instated the "collapsed" theory in their standards?
I suppose the world looks like a wonderful place when you filter anything
you don't want to see out of the input stream. But it must *really* be
annoying when the world doesn't bend to your will:
Sees meter showing empty fuel tank; tunes it out and substitutes a meter
showing a full fuel tank; car still doesn't go; filters out image of
stationary environment and replaces it with image of moving environment;
relaxes and enjoys the "drive"; gets out of car and discovers he's at home
instead of at the grocery store; substitutes image of grocery store;
shops; returns home by similar mechanism; enjoys an image of a magnificent
dinner; goes to bed hungry.
What a life!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Roger Schlafly
> > Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
> > world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
> > from apes.
> Wrongo. Humans _are_ apes. Chimps, actually. Want a banana? Ook.
Statement confirmed, at least for Pat James.
Roger Schlafly
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> > evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
> > Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> > the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> > standards.
> Collapsed so hard that the citizens of Kansas voted the shysters out and
> re-instated the "collapsed" theory in their standards?
The election shows just how completely the evolutionists have control
over the educational establishment. The 1999 Kansas standards
required the teaching of evolution, and not creationism. But
apparently there were some deviations from the Darwinian-Leftist-
Kuhnian-Gouldian party line, so the infidels had to be driven out
at any cost.
Bobby D. Bryant
> The election shows just how completely the evolutionists have control
> over the educational establishment. The 1999 Kansas standards
> required the teaching of evolution, and not creationism. But
> apparently there were some deviations from the Darwinian-Leftist-
> Kuhnian-Gouldian party line, so the infidels had to be driven out
> at any cost.
Ah. When right-wing holy roller stealth candidates got control of the school
board, it meant that the public saw the light and rejected evolution. When
the general public knowingly voted educated people back into those same
positions, it means that a cabal of Evil Ooshonists are manipulating the
"educational establishment".
I always wanted to live in a fantasy world too, but I would have chosen one
with Knights and Dragons and Fair Maids and Evil Overlords and all that fun
stuff, instead of one like the one that you live in.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Roger, I hope you realize that you sound like a parody of your posts.
HRG.
catshark
Yeah, voters in Kansas have long been known for their adhereance to the
Darwinian-Leftist-Kuhnian-Gouldian party line.
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Henry Barwood
Connie wrote:
Is it just me, or do 99% of the trolls come from WebTV subscribers?
Barwood
Frank Carr
> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists"
> come to a meeting of the minds.
First, certain brands of creationism are contrary to the physical
evidence that has been discovered. They are based on thought that
relies more on faith than the scientific method. Most of the scientific
criticism you'll see around here concerns what's called "young earth
creationism" that tries (and fails) to make the fossil record fit a
literal interpretation of the King James version of the Bible.
Secondly, some proponents of evolution move beyond the scientific
method and into the realm of philosophy and theology. Some are as
amazingly dogmatic about their philosophy as the creationists are about
their theology.
My personal thought is that one should avoid mixing science and
personal theology/philosophy. They can complement each other, but there
is a human tendency to mix them.
Frank Carr
jfc...@msn.com
Ken Cox
> 1. The two sides basically refuse to compromise. Creationists generally
> believe that to give ground on any of their beliefs would result in the
> collapse of Christianity and a lawless, atheist world.
Such as is seen in western Europe already.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Mark VandeWettering
>The question of "how life began" is simply a surrogate for the question
>of "who we are."
Only if you are silly enough to make it a surrogate. Most people realize
that they are the child of their parents, but at some point realize that
they are free to pick and choose how they wish to identify themselves.
What's my identity? I could think of myself as "white". Or a computer
scientist. A telescope builder. A husband. A father. For most adults,
their identity is something they choose, not something that is foisted upon
us by genetics.
>Do we differ from apes merely in degree, or also in
>kind?
This question has been resolved. We are apes.
>Does "might makes right" apply to us just as it applies to apes?
Nice how you tried to shift the goal posts from common descent to social
Darwinism. I'm not biting.
>We can't figure out "where are we going" without first figuring
>out "who we are."
Mindless sophistry.
>Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
>world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
>from apes.
Really? I've got absolutely no problem with being called an ape.
You can't pick your relatives.
>Andy
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark VandeWettering
>Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
>While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
>
>My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
>to a meeting of the minds.
Because creationism is at its heart a denial of science, logic, and reason.
I suppose scientists could choose to try to meet creationists on some common
ground, but they'd have to abandon science, logic and reason in the process.
>Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
>cause" planned "evolution"? Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
>for eons?
Since that isn't a falsiable theory, true or not, science really has nothing
to say about it.
>Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
>a "creator"?
Science does not to seek to either prove or disprove the existence of a
creator. It seeks explanations for the way the world appears.
>It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
>somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began?
Some people are more curious than you apparently.
>Shouldn't the
>question be "Where are we going?"
This implies that there is one right question. Of course that is absurd.
Mark
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
>> > evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
>> > Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
>> > the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
>> > standards.
>> Collapsed so hard that the citizens of Kansas voted the shysters out and
>> re-instated the "collapsed" theory in their standards?
>
>The election shows just how completely the evolutionists have control
>over the educational establishment.
thank GOD!!! and the voters agree!!
The 1999 Kansas standards
>required the teaching of evolution, and not creationism.
no, they didnt. they deleted references to macroevolution, and they
gutted teaching of cosmology. roger's a revisionist so he likes the
idea of kids being kept stupid by the right wing...makes THEM right
wing.
Floyd
Connie wrote:
> Obviously, there are some very educated and intelligent people here.
> While I am no PhD in the subject, I am intelligent.
We can tell. Well, I can tell at least.
>
>
> My question is this. Why cannot "creationists" and "evolutionists" come
> to a meeting of the minds.
Because creationism is a political reaction against science and evolution is
science. The one is simply antithetical to the other. There is no theory
of creation, otherwise what you suggest might be possible. All that
creationism actually consists of is an attack on scientific findings and an
attempt to impose religious beliefs on non-believers at taxpayers' expense.
> Is it not possible that the "uncaused first
> cause" planned "evolution"?
Sure, that's quite possible. In the parlance of this n.g., it's refered to
as "theistic evolutionism."
> Planned life to "happen" exactly as it has
> for eons? Why is it so necessary to prove or disprove the existence of
> a "creator"?
To scientists, it isn't. It makes no difference one way or the other if
there is an intelligent force that is behaving as though it did not exist,
or if said force really did not exist. From an empirical standpoint, there
is no way to differentiate between the following two propositions:1) God
doesn't exist
2) God exists, but does not interact in an unequivocal way with the
universe.
Since science only deals with the empirical world, anything (including God)
that does not interact with the empirical world is outside the realm of
science.
Creationists, on the other hand, want to force everyone to believe as
they believe, using the public school system (funded by taxpayers) to
disseminate their religious beliefs, in direct violation of the US
constitution, and against the wishes of the populations of most countries,
including the majority of religious people.
> It must be obvious to everyone here that "life" began
> somewhere, somehow. Why is it so critical how it began?
Well, why is it critical to know anything? Why do you like the colour
blue? Why do we make chocolate cake, but not turnip cake? What makes the
sun come up in the morning? Basically, I'm interested, and that's
justification enough, IMHO. Still, knowing about the past can tell us a lot
of information that we can use to help shape the future. For example,
knowing that we are related to the other primates, and discovering that some
primates are immune to Yellow Fever, leads me to think thatperhaps there is
something in one of our cousin species that we could imitate to make
ourselves immune to this disease. Knowing how and where they developed that
immunity might help us. There are thousands of other examples for why we
should study our past, that's just the first one to come to mind.
> Shouldn't the
> question be "Where are we going?"
I'm going over to the pub for a pint, and a long, soulful talk with another
person here in the department about some of the details of human behavioral
ecology. Then I'm going home. Your questions are too easy. ;-)
-Floyd
Larry Handlin
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
Roger, has it occurred to you that the Kansas Republican Party is who
drove out the creationists on the school board? They aren't leftists,
they are nice, but rather sedate people who want their children to
have a good education. Given your inability to offer any substantive
critiques of the new standards and no ability to defend the 1999
standards, exactly what is your problem?
Cheers,
Larry Handlin
"Morris is saying that it is not possible to be
a ("consistent") Christian if you don't accept
his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything
else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative
sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian
if you don't believe that God has a better imagination than Henry Morris."
--Paul Neubauer
"Unbelievable, that the neutron bomb is found in
the Bible."
--Rexalla Van Impe
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the
land until Jesus Returns."
--James Watt to the Wall Street Journal as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic."
By Colman McCarthy. Washington Post, May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."
--James Watt to the House Interior Committee as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic."
by Colman McCarthy. Washington Post. May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
"I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple."
--James Watt as cited in "Ex-interior secretary sentenced: Watt fined, must perform community service for role in HUD
housing scandal" AP & Reuters. The Detroit News. March 13, 1996 (I HAVE NO PAGE #)
JAMES WATT: My credibility was used to get a result.
SPOKESMAN: Right, therefore you were engaged in influence peddling.
JAMES WATT: If I were a Democrat, I would say that Jim Watt engaged in influence peddling.
REP. TED WEISS: And if you were an objective Republican, would you also believe that that
was-
JAMES WATT: No, I would say there's a skilled, talented man who used his credibility to
accomplish an objective.
REP. TED WEISS: Morally? Morally and ethically?
JAMES WATT: That, by definition, is also there.
--As quoted in "Case Closed." Newshour with Jim Lehrer
July 1, 1999
"Guilty" --James Watt Or something like that. 1996
Mike Owen
Larry Handlin wrote:
>
> On 29 Jan 2001 04:57:32 -0500, Roger Schlafly
> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> >> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> >> > evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
> >> > Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> >> > the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> >> > standards.
> >> Collapsed so hard that the citizens of Kansas voted the shysters out and
> >> re-instated the "collapsed" theory in their standards?
> >
> >The election shows just how completely the evolutionists have control
> >over the educational establishment. The 1999 Kansas standards
> >required the teaching of evolution, and not creationism. But
> >apparently there were some deviations from the Darwinian-Leftist-
> >Kuhnian-Gouldian party line, so the infidels had to be driven out
> >at any cost.
>
> Roger, has it occurred to you that the Kansas Republican Party is who
> drove out the creationists on the school board? They aren't leftists,
> they are nice, but rather sedate people who want their children to
> have a good education. Given your inability to offer any substantive
> critiques of the new standards and no ability to defend the 1999
> standards, exactly what is your problem?
Roger's problem?
Do you want the list alphabetized, or sorted by magnitude?
Pat James
(in message <3A753D1E...@my-dejanews.com>):
Ah.. Rog, your bro said that, and I quote:
Note that even t.o oldtimer evolutionists seem to prefer living in a
world where most think we are different in kind, not just in degree,
from apes.
_I_ said that humans _are_ apes. I said it twice, actually. You snipped one
such statement, ('We _are_ apes. Just with thiner hair and funny feet.') but
were silly enough to leave the other in. Now, exactly how does _directly
contradicting_ what your bro said confirm it? Ook.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Rodjk #613
> "The Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > If we teach children creationism, we teach them sloppy thinking. We
> teach
> > them that they can believe what they want and deny the evidence. We
> teach
> > them to shut up, sit down and believe what they are told. We teach
> them they
> > are the centre of the universe, and that important processes like
> testing
> > hypotheses and perform experiments are not necessary.
>
So you agree with the rest?
Also, "we are all children of god. God loves you"
Does that not make us important, the center of gods love?
>
> > If we teach children evolution, we teach them rationality and
reason.
> We
> > teach them to ask questions and look for the answers. We teach them
> that
> > nothing, even religion, is above query. We teach them one of the
most
> > beautiful and powerful theories ever developed.
>
> So powerful that no can provide a meaningful definition
> of "evolution", "natural selection", "neo-Darwinism", etc.?! So
> powerful that it has to rely on hoaxes and censoring books (like
> Behe's) and questions that criticize the theory?!
So much BS. When were you unable to find the scientific def of those
terms? That you do not like the scientific def does not mean they do
not exist or are not used.
And when and where is Behe's book censored?
References please, or withdraw the claim.
>
> > It's not only that one theory is correct and one incorrect, the
> critical
> > thing is the kind of thinking they represent.
>
> Close -- it's the hostility to religion that evolution attempts to
> inculcate.
Since most people who accept religion (like the pope) are religious,
your claim is nonsense.
>
> > Evolution is an enquiring theory based on evidence. Creationism is a
> closed
> > doctrine based on faith.
>
> Evolution collapses as soon as students are allowed to read critical
> evaluations of it and its "evidence". That's why the Kansas Board of
> Ed. recently removed the prohibition against censorship, and removed
> the doctrine of falsification as well, from its new pro-evolution
> standards.
Bullsh*t. Typical creationist, no one lie is enough, they just keep on
going.
Rod #613
>
> Andy