jeanette: how do you fight that?

I don't know if there's any point trying to 'convert' the IDers, but the ongoing fight in the courts is heartening.

I appreciate that you weren't cowed into silence as well.

As far as the situation here goes, I'm hoping that our new Prime Minister, whose party used to be the Canadian Alliance, then Reform with heavy 'grassroots support', is not too deeply invested in the Religious Right here.

Certainly there is some validity to that fear.

mtman900


No, it isn't. A lot of the bible is probably not meant to be taken literally. It's just a bunch of stories that explain a culture's rules and morays. I mean, care to explain the section on how close to death you can beat your slave, or do you accept that to be God's own truth as well?

The problem is that many people DO take it to be literal. It's a damn good thing that not everyone did, or we'd be sacrificing goats and stoning unbelievers instead of biatching on teh interwebs.

Mega Steve: instead of biatching on teh interwebs.

Actually, due to a mistranslation, that's what the 5th commandment says.

"Honor thy father and thy mother... by biatching on teh interwebs!!1"

Of course, today's bible scholars won't teach the controversy.

How much proof do you non-theists need? I'm curious if you are all as scientifically 'open minded' as you claim. When Mary Higby Schwitzer found preserved blood vessels and red blood cells in a fossilized T-rex bone, she was openly attacked by scientists because they said it was "impossible".
Quoting from the recent issue of Discover magazine:
"I Had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding "wasn't possible". I wrote back and said, "Well, what data would convince you?", and he said "NONE".

That says everything right there. You don't even want to hear it. Because if it is possible that there is a creator, and you are his creation, you have an ultimate authority to answer to, and that directly conflicts with your worldview and how you want to live your lives.

Now as an Evangelical believer, I believe you were created with the freedom to reject God if you want, so I am not one of the people who want to cram "religion" down your throat. But if you think we are just going to lay down while you try to pave us down with your version of history, instead of allowing debate and independent thought (and this requires all sides of the discussion to be on the table,) you are sadly mistaken.

That freedom that you want so bad? don't even think we are going to just let you take it away from us to be allowed to be heard, the same way you are free to be heard now.

Science either tests all possiblilties, or it isn't really science.

The_0tter: We, here, can divide up the cash evenly and conclude, with reasonable certainty, that contentious issues south of the border will ooze north of the border.

I think the idea of the study was that this issue is already here, but to what extent?

Wow - I'm shocked at this. A buddy of mine went there and from what I understand it's like the Harvard of Canada. I'm sure this isn't McGill taking the stupid pill, prolly just an oversight or some beaurocratic mumbo jumbo

/obviously didn't go to harvard

mama's_tasty_foods: A third possibility: maybe God is still God, and yet some, or even none, of God's words are in what you refer to as your Bible.

If God is worth believing in, He would reveal himself personally and historically. If he is God, He will not allow His words to be corrupted.

Anything less than this diminishes His Godhood, and renders Him less than God. He is either God Almighty, or no god at all. There is no middle ground.

How much proof do you non-theists need?

Why do you assume that all who accept evolution are non-theists? That is not true.


Schwitzer found preserved blood vessels and red blood cells in a fossilized T-rex bone, she was openly attacked by scientists because they said it was "impossible".

You are clearly misinformed regarding the dinosaur bone find. No blood vessels or red blood cells were found. What was found was a very small amount of unidentified tissue that became soft following a specific rehydration technique. Schwitzer herself stated that the find only demonstrates that there are certain aspects of fossilization that are not known; she does not believe the bone to be less than millions of years old.

It would appear with this claim, along with your previous claim regarding Einstein, that you have not actually researched any of the claims that you are making. This throws into question the credibility of any claims that you have made.

thespindrifter

Science either tests all possiblilties, or it isn't really science.

Thanks for mentioning that, because you hit the nail on the head when it comes to why ID isnt science. Because it is not testable. You cannot 'test' the 'theory' that god created us. Proponents of ID supply only misconceptions about evolution as proof of ID, which is completely assbackwards.

There can be no discussion on both sides of the table, because there is no other side of the table. All there is is a group of politically and religiously motivated people who are using the publics general uneducation about evolution against them. If ID is science, let them submit papers to peer review, instead of trying to wedge it under the door of the school system.

Australopithicus afarensis
Australopithicus africanus
Australopithicus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens sapiens

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE YOUR BELIEVERS WITHOUT EVOLUTION!

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that the scientific method works better at predicting/describing than does random guessing.

Thank you for your time.

If God is worth believing in, He would reveal himself personally and historically. If he is God, He will not allow His words to be corrupted.

Are you saying that you are intelligent enough to perfectly understand the mind of God and state exactly what God will do? Given your previous factual errors regarding Albert Einstein, the theistic status of those who accept evolution and the soft tissue found in a dinosaur bone, why should I give this fourth claim from you any credence?

thespindrifter: Science either tests all possiblilties, or it isn't really science.

Hey, that story sounds just like an anecdote.

The science world, like all others, has its problems. One of those problems is that people do have vested interests in some ideas, but that will be overcome. I'm not familiar with this particular story, but, given that her data is correct, we would accept it and make sense of it. That's what we've been doing since we've been studying things.

Religion is completely different. It asks you to believe things that you wouldn't normally believe as a rational person on complete faith. Hardcore faith is where no logic is required, in fact looked down upon.

"Darwinists" (ugh what a stupid term) aren't looking to destroy the notion of religion, but the religious who are against it are looking to destroy it. Why? Because it goes against one of their stories that, if told to an adult who had no previous familiarity with it, would laugh in their face.

On the Einstein issue: maybe I should have been a little more clear when I threw him in. The gross majority of the names I threw out there were just off the top of my memory, and concidering it is late and I'm tired, I mixed up Neewton.
I do not believe that any of these men were just cultural christians; most of them have personal writings that reaffirm their faith.

thespindrifter:
When Mary Higby Schwitzer found preserved blood vessels and red blood cells in a fossilized T-rex bone, she was openly attacked by scientists because they said it was "impossible".
Quoting from the recent issue of Discover magazine:
"I Had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding "wasn't possible". I wrote back and said, "Well, what data would convince you?", and he said "NONE".

And yet, amazingly, the data was still published. One pigheaded reviewer who expresses themselves poorly does not represent the entire scientific community. Stop cherry-picking.

Science either tests all possiblilties, or it isn't really science.

Science doesn't test "possibilities" like "we are all actually made of cheese, but God cleverly tweaks all our senses and instruments to prevent us detecting this fact". Because that is not testable and there is zero preliminary evidence suggesting it might be even remotely true. There is, in fact, ample evidence we are NOT made of cheese, and scientists are not expected to keep considering that "possibility" every time they write a paper.

Reglovin:
Science either tests all possiblilties, or it isn't really science.

False dilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, Reglovin. Hit the nail on the head.

Dimensio: factual errors regarding Albert Einstein

And Newton.
And the dinosaur bit.

I mean, seriously... this is difficult to keep up with.

thespindrifter

From another article on Mary Higby Schweitzer:

Over a decade ago Mary Higby Schweitzer began her research career by announcing that she and professor Jack Horner had discovered evidence of blood residues in a Tyrannosaur rex femur. There followed many years of creationists' distortion of those findings which they presented as support for a young Earth...

And 'one reviewer' does not the entire scientific community make.

As for your question, you're correct that once someone's mind is made up about something, there's often little that can change it. I don't see how this trait necessarily needs to lead me to believe in God or gods, however.

2006-04-06 09:46:42 PM The_0tter

How about rejecting his grant for the "study" because, the applicant doesn't need a truck load of cash to espouse his obviously entrenched opinion. He has made conclusions before he has made his research.

This fellow is a social scientist, not a biologist. The reason for the denial is silly. That said, does he really need to the money to "research" this?

Well said, I completely agree.

Darwin is a Theory, fruit cakes.

Gee, a third thread on this topic.

Sheesh

Axle

So's gravity. Care to jump off a cliff?

On the Einstein issue: maybe I should have been a little more clear when I threw him in.

You presented him as a creationist. There exists no evidence to support such a claim. You later claimed that he believed in YHWH, which is also false. It would appear that your error was not one of clarity, but rather one of not doing any research.

Gee, a third thread on this topic.

Third? I saw the discussion regarding the finding of Tikaalik. What was the second?

We're not going to win this fight in the courts, nor by doing University research. There is unfortunately one and only one way to win this fight: education.

Education and critical thinking are innoculum against unreason, fear and superstition. You have to teach kids how to think before you indoctrinate them with anything.

Unfortunately, religions and other infectious memes have seized on a very powerful human instinct: the desire to raise one's children in one's own image. It's natural to want to teach your kids the things that allowed you to survive, prosper and reproduce; if an idea gets into your consciousness and insists that it is, in fact, the most important of those things, you'll be extremely vociferous about passing it on. If an idea insists that teaching your kids the gospel is the only way to save their souls, instint will be damned if it's going to let anyone else teach them differently.

Unfortunately, this amounts to nothing more than brainwashing. Children cannot think yet; their minds are extremely receptive - witness how easily they're fooled into believing in Santa Claus. What chance do they have against a society that tells them what's true and what's not, when they's not yet prepared to judge that for themselves?

Overwhelmingly, to the point of statistical near-certainty, distribution and transmission of the world's faiths is vertical (meaning through generations, parent to child). Conversions happen, of course, but they don't represent the real vector for these kind of ideas.

Essentially, until we stop implanting these ideas in kids who are too young to defend themselves, we're going to continue to have superstition. The infected kids will continue to form their worldviews around these ideas, and will grow up to be every bit as bad as their parents.

If it makes any of you feel better, we can hold off teaching evolutionary principle until junior high or high school -- but only if we can teach the scientific method in primary school. Brainwashing with anysubject is bad news. Teaching people how to think is the only solution.

/Oh, and FYI, when Einstein said that he refused to believe that God plays dice with the universe, it was a figure of speech.

Axle

Darwin is a Theory, fruit cakes.

He is? Am I a theory too? How about my dog?

fragMasterFlash

Oh how I want to strangle you right now. It took me ten freaking years to get that song out of my head.

All my hard work... for nothing.

Axle

Darwin is a Theory, fruit cakes.

Darwin was a guy. Evolution is a theory.

Ass.

Dimensio

The Bill Nye thread.

Sort of the same topic...

EzraS: Axle

So's gravity. Care to jump off a cliff?

ha, excellent. I love people who apply a common definition to a term without understanding what it means in the scientific community.

Drasancas, Mega Steve

Ah cmon guys, you know what he meant.

Dimensio: why should I give this fourth claim from you any credence?

Would you take it from anyone? I thought not.

Wish I could stay up and play, but it has been a long enough day. I need fuud and sleep.

Good night to all, no hard feelings.

Parting shot---

Are you saying that you are intelligent enough to perfectly understand the mind of God and state exactly what God will do?

God created us in his image. God is logical, therefore we are logical, just extremely, finitely less so. Therefore, why is it improbable that a god who would go through all the effort, wouldn't bother to at least give us enough understanding to relate to His way of thinking, since He created us to delight in Him in the first place? A god that doesn't want us to understand him, isn't a god worth knowing at all. Either He loves us, or he doesn't; all powerful and apathetic? I don't think so. An idiot could figure that out.
Either we are created on purpose, or we are a total freaking miraculous accident. I see no middle ground.

Again, bene noctis.

mtman900

ha, excellent. I love people who apply a common definition to a term without understanding what it means in the scientific community.

It constitutes about 80% of all creationist debate points.

How the hell does the underlying nature/accuracy of evolutionary theory have any relevance to social science research on the phenomenon of the ID movement? That's like denying funding for a study on the electoral actions of conservative christians because you can't prove the Bible is true. Crazy.

Drasancas: He is? Am I a theory too? How about my dog?

Well, if I wanted to be, like, super-technical about it the answers would be:

Yes. Yes. Yes, and his poops too.

Drasancas

And the other 10% exist because they can't add properly.

thespindrifter

God created us in his image. God is logical, therefore we are logical, just extremely, finitely less so. Therefore, why is it improbable that a god who would go through all the effort, wouldn't bother to at least give us enough understanding to relate to His way of thinking, since He created us to delight in Him in the first place? A god that doesn't want us to understand him, isn't a god worth knowing at all. Either He loves us, or he doesn't; all powerful and apathetic? I don't think so. An idiot could figure that out.


That's a nice cop-out answer.. also distances yourself from occam's raizor by a few lightyears.

"God works in mysteeeeerious ways!"

Either we are created on purpose, or we are a total freaking miraculous accident. I see no middle ground.

The evidence is piling up on the latter.

If that accident didn't occur, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

EzraS: And the other 10% exist because they can't add properly.

hahahaha... nice, hearty laugh.

This thread has been full of good humor. What we need are more Jesus-ists.

I have not read these posts, and I glanced over the article.

I only want to add that the whole evolution vs. creationism thing doesn't exist in canada. Canada is essentially four cities; Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal. That is about 50% or more of the entire population. Calgary is the most "conservative" of these cities, and it is about as conservative as NYC.

Breathe easy, nothing to worry about.
r

thespindrifter:
Wish I could stay up and play, but it has been a long enough day. I need fuud and sleep.

Good night to all, no hard feelings.

Oh there's a shock. "Uh, oh, I've been thoroughly pwned. Time for fuud and sleep!"

LOL

God created us in his image. God is logical, therefore we are logical, just extremely, finitely less so.

In thespindrifer's case... VERY much less so.

Thanks, mtman900

I agree. Where is elchip and his collection of amusing images?

elchip! I summon thee!

thespindrifter: God is logical... why is it improbable that a god who would go through all the effort... A god that doesn't want us to understand him, isn't a god worth knowing at all.

Those are some of the most startling comments I've ever heard made as they seem to directly contradict quite a bit of religious thinking.

/God's effort?

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY STEPHEN HARPARS FAULT!!!1

Would you take it from anyone?

I would take it from someone who presented a reasonable case explaining why they had credibility.


I thought not.

This is a non-sequitur response, based upon a faulty assumption of how I would answer to your previous question. I find it curious that you would not wait for my response, especially given that you clearly are unable to predict it accurately.


Wish I could stay up and play, but it has been a long enough day. I need fuud and sleep.

I understand your unwillingness to continue this discussion. You must find it quite irritating to continually have your claims exposed as false and unresearched. I understand that it is far easier for you to run away from the discussion than to address the rebuttals to your factual errors.

Willful Ignorance!
Logical Fallacies!
Out of context quotes!
Dishonesty!
Heart!

By your powers combined, I am Captain Bevets!.

Captain Bevets, he's our hero..
..he's gonna bring logic down to zero!

rob.d

I completely and utterly disagree with every single statement you've made.

Captain Bevets, he's our hero..
..he's gonna bring logic down to zero!

Hey...that's catchy!