Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Tennessee trying to intelligently design an anti-evolution bill without the creation of a controversy. This is not a repeat from 1925   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Tenn, Tennessee General Assembly, Bill Haslam, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Volkswagen AG, doctorate degrees, school boards, evolution  
•       •       •

8413 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2012 at 3:08 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-04 11:07:50 PM  

IrishFarmer: That first reason, though, isn't much different from the motivation of atheists who conflate science with atheism. They feel like they need a justification for their lack of belief, as well as a way to defeat religious beliefs by saying, "See, reality makes it unlikely that God even exists, let alone that your specific religion is true."


I disagree, because I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't rush out embrace science because I'm trying not to believe in god; I don't believe in god because what we now know about the world makes his existence less likely (at least in terms of the various established religions). Science has clearly disproved many bedrock tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Their creation stories can't be true, based on what we know about the age and composition of the universe. If these faiths insist on being absolutely true (which they do), it logically follows that their moral and spiritual beliefs are also suspect.

As I said in my post just above, I don't believe science can disprove the existence of the supernatural. But I do believe it's already disproved most of our conventional ideas about what the supernatural might be. It sure ain't what's in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah....
 
2012-04-04 11:23:17 PM  

wiredroach: P.S. Despite the handwringing of the faithful, atheism isn't necessarily a religious position. If you're willing to admit that you can't disprove the existence of the divine, then it's merely expressing the belief that there's no compelling evidence for god.


A belief which is still not scientific. At any rate, it would be pretty convenient if Atheists were able to make proclamations about the existence of God and Christians (or believers) couldn't, for Atheists anyway. I don't see how that's anything other than a double standard, though.

Also, it's completely unnecessary. In what way is it helpful to science to speculate about the existence of God? I would say it isn't. So then all we're left with is Atheists basically telling believers that they need to choose either science or religion. Which is bad.
 
2012-04-04 11:25:05 PM  
wiredroach: If you're willing to admit that you can't disprove the existence of the divine

I'm willing to admit no one can disprove anything, because it cannot be done. You cannot prove something doesn't exist, you can only prove what does exist.

Now lets talk about how awfully pompous, greedy, and selfish it is for religitards to not be happy with the finite life they know they have because they're living it right now, they're convinced brainwashed to believe that if they follow a set of rules written by cavemen -- passed down by word of mouth for thousands upon thousands of years -- while tribe conquers tribe after tribe, stories are assimilated, names are changed...

Lets talk about how priests (rabbis, muslim clerics) knowingly lie to their congregations in attempt to solicit more donations); it is for these people I wish there was a hell.
 
2012-04-04 11:33:24 PM  

wiredroach: I disagree, because I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't rush out embrace science because I'm trying not to believe in god; I don't believe in god because what we now know about the world makes his existence less likely (at least in terms of the various established religions).


That's your prerogative. It just seems like a problem when folks like Krauss are out there telling Americans that if they accept science, then they must accept that God's existence is unlikely. Now, if Krauss was just saying, "As an Atheist, this is what I believe, but it's just my belief." That might be one thing, but he takes it further than that. Many atheists do.

If that's not you, then sorry if I'm just harranging you here. I'm not trying to dog you for having your own personal beliefs about it.

wiredroach: Science has clearly disproved many bedrock tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Their creation stories can't be true, based on what we know about the age and composition of the universe.


The religious have some cleaning house to do, as far as how we interpret the bible. However, it is very quickly becoming "mainstream" Christianity (at least) to accept science. There was recently a symposium where over 500 congregations in something like a dozen or more countries where Christians got together to affirm that science isn't threatening to their beliefs and so on. The premier Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, advocates for acceptance of science. Etc.

So, what I would think the scary thought for Atheists might be is: What happens when Christianity stops abusing science, and Atheists are the predominant group doing it? Just a thought.
 
2012-04-04 11:35:40 PM  

IrishFarmer: A belief which is still not scientific.


Of course it's a scientific belief. Nothing in the observable universe compels the intervention of the supernatural.

IrishFarmer: it would be pretty convenient if Atheists were able to make proclamations about the existence of God and Christians (or believers) couldn't


They don't need to; the contradictions, inaccuracies and morally questionable teachings of Christian and other faiths undermine them just fine. They certainly don't require atheists to do anything at all.

IrishFarmer: In what way is it helpful to science to speculate about the existence of God?


I'll paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's maxim about the likelihood of other life in the universe: either there is a God, or there isn't. Either way, the implications are staggering. I don't know how science could ever prove or disprove god, but science is the search for knowledge, so why not see where it takes us?
 
2012-04-04 11:41:52 PM  

IrishFarmer: So, what I would think the scary thought for Atheists might be is: What happens when Christianity stops abusing science, and Atheists are the predominant group doing it? Just a thought.


That thought doesn't scare me, but it make me wonder what Christianity is, if it decides to abandon what its sacred texts claim is the truth. There are any number of more or less literal ways to interpret scripture, but I'm not sure what the point is in believing any of it if you choose to reject the creation story that kicks it off. Just my 2¢.
 
2012-04-04 11:49:04 PM  
would protect teachers who allow students to criticize evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.

As long as their sol argument isn't "because the Bible says so" I can go with it.
 
2012-04-05 12:05:55 AM  

IrishFarmer: What happens when Christianity stops abusing science, and Atheists are the predominant group doing it? Just a thought.


If christianity stops abusing science 100%, then they will be tied with Atheists, not better than.
 
2012-04-05 12:07:32 AM  

wiredroach: If these faiths insist on being absolutely true (which they do), it logically follows that their moral and spiritual beliefs are also suspect.


This is unequivocally true. It is also, however, the view of only a very vocal minority unless you consider only the American southeast or the Middle East in isolation, where fundamentalist extremism is the norm. Fark is a great example of just that, with the "Christian" position being represented loudly and for the most part exclusively by Bevets and his evangelical anti-science. On the other hand, as far back as at least the 5th century CE there were Christian theologians, most notably Augustine, warning against literal interpretations of obviously allegorical scripture for exactly that reason. It casts the entirety of the faith in a light of willful and arrogant ignorance. Sadly, most rational minded Christians keep their damn mouths shut for fear of being lumped in with that nonsense. Food for thought.
 
2012-04-05 12:10:23 AM  
Don't say gay. Don't say evolution. Don't say evilution.
 
2012-04-05 12:14:20 AM  

hdhale: Clemkadidlefark: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x333]

All the evidence I need of a loving and beneficent Creator God.

Thank you, God

[www.womensfancydresshq.com image 494x500]

Where is your God now?


Oh hell no.

I know the work of the devil when I see it. Now go to church and confess your sin for equating female cousins of Jabba to the slender yet voluptuous mouth watering morsels of ...

Damn that Matthew. I'm gonna rip that part out of the book.

Now where was I?

/fapfapfapfap ....
 
2012-04-05 12:51:49 AM  

Dimensio: Pochas: This bill doesn't seem that terrible. It protects teachers who allow their students to criticize evolution. Teachers should be protected for letting their students criticize everything, and indeed the students should be allowed to criticize anything.

RTFA FTW!!!

You are correct. Students should be permitted to question controversial subjects, such as the moon landing and the occurrence of the Holocaust.


Students asking questions? We can't have that! They might learn how to figure out what is real and what is bull crap on their own instead of the delicious regurgitation they spew nowadays.

/Not a New-Earth Creationist.

//If comparing the two in class is used as a lesson to show the differences between a scientifically-based hypothesis and one that isn't, I'm all for it.

///Exercises of reason FTW
 
2012-04-05 01:28:57 AM  
It's all bullshiat that Republicans -aka Christian fundamentalists- dont believe in science. They do -unquestionably. But there is a stigma that they must appear to eschew certain parts of science in front of their peers.

But trust me; when they have that first heart attack they will be at the hospital expecting the latest procedures medical science has to offer!!!

\whats that word for a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings?
 
2012-04-05 01:30:41 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x333]

All the evidence I need of a loving and beneficent Creator God.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Thank you, God


The funny thing is...the only reason you're attracted to hot chicks is millions of years of evolutions.
 
2012-04-05 01:48:35 AM  

IrishFarmer: wiredroach: I disagree, because I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't rush out embrace science because I'm trying not to believe in god; I don't believe in god because what we now know about the world makes his existence less likely (at least in terms of the various established religions).

That's your prerogative. It just seems like a problem when folks like Krauss are out there telling Americans that if they accept science, then they must accept that God's existence is unlikely. Now, if Krauss was just saying, "As an Atheist, this is what I believe, but it's just my belief." That might be one thing, but he takes it further than that. Many atheists do.

If that's not you, then sorry if I'm just harranging you here. I'm not trying to dog you for having your own personal beliefs about it.

wiredroach: Science has clearly disproved many bedrock tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Their creation stories can't be true, based on what we know about the age and composition of the universe.

The religious have some cleaning house to do, as far as how we interpret the bible. However, it is very quickly becoming "mainstream" Christianity (at least) to accept science. There was recently a symposium where over 500 congregations in something like a dozen or more countries where Christians got together to affirm that science isn't threatening to their beliefs and so on. The premier Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, advocates for acceptance of science. Etc.

So, what I would think the scary thought for Atheists might be is: What happens when Christianity stops abusing science, and Atheists are the predominant group doing it? Just a thought.


Wrongo Marylou, William lane Craig has said in many of his talks that "It is far from true that macro-evolutionary has been demonstrated" and that it is "highly improbable" that evolution could ever happen without god.

What would happen if christians stopped abusing science ? Then NOBODY would be abusing science!

Atheists are not abusing science when they say that it gives them no reason to believe in god, they are just saying there is no reason to believe. If someone could give me a good, evidence based reason to believe I would consider it but since that hasn't happened yet I have no reason to accept that god exists. That is how science works, I believe things that I have evidence for, not that I wish were true or give me a good feeling.
 
2012-04-05 01:48:43 AM  
Why are people upset about that bill? What's wrong with allowing students to challenge established scientific theory? If you only want to hear why you're right and don't like it when people challenge what you believe to be the truth, how is that not being closed minded?

"The high and mighty cry out TREASON! when you challenge the word that they call truth!"
Rez- Altar Of Pain

/believes that evolution did happen and is still happening today
 
2012-04-05 01:52:40 AM  
wiredroach

While I appreciate your effort to bridge the divide, it's a swing and a miss, I'm afraid. You're essentially saying that God created a complex universe and gave humans the intelligence to comprehend its basic workings, but rather than supplying the correct information he chose to lie to them by giving them a lengthy, contradictory, frequently incorrect collection of fables, moral teachings, laws, and history that they're required to regard as utterly true and follow completely, under pain of damnation.

Doesn't work, I'm afraid.


A swing and a miss! Very good attempt though.

In the teachings, we're taught that God gave humans free will. Meaning, we could decide things for ourselves. Plus we're sentient. (That means somewhat smarter than a brick.) He could have created us with an inborn obligation to worship Him, but he chose not to.

Humans, being humans, tend to muck up almost everything eventually. Please note the difficulty in finding actual truth on the Internet. Especially on YouTube. 'Inspired' humans wrote the Bible years after Jesus left. "Inspired' these days basically means fanatical. Limited on information and technology, they had to work things out and they periodically screwed up. We've already seen the damage that any organized religion can cause to a society and how it's founding principals can be distorted and warped for personal gain, either deliberately or unintentionally.

Humans created the damnation thing. The most enlightened Preacher I ever met explained to me that that, those who do not find their way to God will not be cast into hell, but will be judged upon how they followed the teachings and rules of their societies.

BTW. Hell is a human invention. The Old Testament doesn't have a place of fire and brimstone where all evil-doers and unbelievers will be tortured hideously until the end of time or for scores of years.

Again, human's have free will. They are not programmed to believe. They have to figure things out for themselves, including religion.

tansa

The fail is strong with this one.

Are you unaware of the miriad versions of the bible that the various sects use that have wildly different interpretations. Among other things...


Excellent! You're thinking!

However, you just confirmed my statement. And, yes, I am aware of the different versions of the Bible, yet all run along the same basic theme. All can be traced back to the Origonal Jewish records.

BMFPitt

For years now, I have wanted to create a comic where God was trying to explain the Big Bang, the formation of the solar system, and evolution to a bunch of cavemen or goat herders. They keep giving him dumb looks and he finally just gets exasperated, and yells out a sarcastic quickie version of Genesis. Then they all get excited. In the last frame he's be muttering something about a flood.

Except I have no artistic talent.

My version may differ from yours though, since I don't think that actually happened.


Excellent. I tend to believe it happened, but on a local scale, not global. There is a geographical theory concerning this and involving where a natural dam gave way, flooding a small country with seawater thousands of years ago. Investigations have found an ancient shore or beach hundreds of feet below the surface of the current sea.

No. I do not believe that Noah could have gathered two of every animal in the world in the time allowed, or even in his lifetime, since most did not know of western lands, the poles or places like Australia.

There are other problems with that story. Such as what happens when you breed far too closely along a family line.
 
2012-04-05 03:08:34 AM  
As a molecular biology grad, I've always been particularly peeved that creationists target evolution but seem (for the most part) happy to reap the benefits that arise from other science and technical development. Evolution, largely as proposed by theorists prior to our massive leaps forward in understanding biochemistry, has pretty much been confirmed by what we've learnt about DNA and cellular processes in the last 50 years. Many developments in medicine have also arisen from this same knowledge, but creationists (with a few exceptions) don't reject medical technology.

So if you want to bash evolution as "merely" being a theory, you aren't being very consistent if you don't dismiss gravity as "intelligent falling". How many creationists will place their faith in their God and step off a bridge?

Not enough, clearly.
 
2012-04-05 03:53:40 AM  

Aussie_As: How many creationists will place their faith in their God and step off a bridge?

Not enough, clearly.


AMEN!
 
2012-04-05 05:47:04 AM  
SkinnyHead:

Actually, Scopes was using evolution to teach racism and white supremacy. The evolutionary biology book he was teaching from described the white race as "the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

rwfan:

A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (usually referred to as just Civic Biology) was a biology textbook written by George William Hunter, published in 1914. It is the book which the state of Tennessee required high school teachers to use in 1925 and is best known for its section about evolution that was ruled by a local court to be in violation of the state Butler Act. It was for teaching from this textbook that John T. Scopes was brought to trial in Dayton, Tennessee in the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The views espoused in the book about evolution, race, and eugenics are common to American Progressives (especially in the work of Charles Benedict Davenport, one of the most prominent American biologists of the early 20th century, whom Hunter cites in the book).

Indeed, the very book -- Hunter's Civic Biology -- from which John T. Scopes taught Darwin's theory of evolution to high school students in Dayton, Tennessee... made it clear that biology had direct political implications for civic society. In discussing the "five races" of man, the text assured the all-white legally segregated high school students taught by Scopes that "the highest type of all, the Caucasians, [are] represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." The book, the avowed goal of which was the improvement of the future human race, then proposed certain eugenic remedies. ~ Alan Dershowitz

hubiestubert:

safetycap:

WizardofToast:





urban.derelict:

"those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

wiredroach:

If these faiths insist on being absolutely true (which they do), it logically follows that their moral and spiritual beliefs are also suspect.

hypnoticus ceratophrys:

This is unequivocally true. It is also, however, the view of only a very vocal minority unless you consider only the American southeast or the Middle East in isolation, where fundamentalist extremism is the norm. Fark is a great example of just that, with the "Christian" position being represented loudly and for the most part exclusively by Bevets and his evangelical anti-science. On the other hand, as far back as at least the 5th century CE there were Christian theologians, most notably Augustine, warning against literal interpretations of obviously allegorical scripture for exactly that reason.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine
 
2012-04-05 07:08:00 AM  

vpb:
I think they need a bill like this for history class. If you think that George Washington was the first president of the USA that's like, just your opinion.

John Hanson half-heartedly raises a hand...

/British so I don't really care \o/
 
2012-04-05 07:54:24 AM  

SkinnyHead: Jake Havechek: SkinnyHead: vpb: Then what's the problem? Most evangelicals I know still believe that.

People who believe in creation are more likely to accept the fact that all men are created equal.

Based on what criteria.........?

Well, in order to believe that all men are created equal, you first got to accept the fact that all men were created, don't you? If you believe that man evolved through entirely random and unguided processes, then what reason do you have to believe that different races are equal? Isn't that why Scopes was teaching both evolution and white supremacy in biology class?


No. In fact even using your logic, you're wrong.

If you believe that God created everything, then there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to conclude that everyone is equal. In fact, working from a purely creationist theory, you can more easily claim that different people were created UNequally based upon whatever reasons the creator had for doing so.

Why go that extra step? Why indeed - but one only need look at every religious doctrine that's ever been promoted to find that their individual dogma almost always include this belief as a way to discriminate against anyone who doesn't share the "correct" belief system. The Bible (both OT and NT) has specific examples of justifying treating entire groups of humans as unequal, unworthy, inferior, etc. with specific applications that slavery, murder, and oppression are not only permitted but encouraged.

You're slipping when I can make your argument better than you can.
 
2012-04-05 08:10:43 AM  
Bevets: They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine

And yet, it has. The earth is billions of years old.

Or was that just a Satany rouse to throw off the nonbelievers?

Bevets: Indeed, the very book -- Hunter's Civic Biology -- from which John T. Scopes taught Darwin's theory of evolution to high school students in Dayton, Tennessee... made it clear that biology had direct political implications for civic society. In discussing the "five races" of man, the text assured the all-white legally segregated high school students taught by Scopes that "the highest type of all, the Caucasians, [are] represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." The book, the avowed goal of which was the improvement of the future human race, then proposed certain eugenic remedies. ~ Alan Dershowitz

Wait. I'm lost. What are you arguing here? Evolution, and the theory of how it occurs, is completely wrong because it was hijacked to support racism and pseudoscientific quackery (eugenics) during the first half of the 20th century?

Please, please pull a "Our side would never do this", bevets-troll. Make it easy to point out how absurd that is.
 
2012-04-05 08:30:32 AM  

Rik01: Excellent. I tend to believe it happened, but on a local scale, not global. There is a geographical theory concerning this and involving where a natural dam gave way, flooding a small country with seawater thousands of years ago. Investigations have found an ancient shore or beach hundreds of feet below the surface of the current sea.


There was a massive flood during human civilization existence, when the melted glaciers in North America broke through a dam that had been holding them back. It knocked a huge chunk of Northern European shoreline off the map, and raised global sea levels.

So yes, we agree that there is a perfectly natural explanation for a Bible story that doesn't require the existence of God.
 
2012-04-05 08:53:35 AM  

Bevets: They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine



It's easy to make anybody say anything you want if you lift a choice few of their words out of the time and context in which they were written and place them into your own without reference. You could make John Gotti sound like Mahatma Ghandi if you quote mine hard enough. You'll manage to fool those people that tend to take words at face value to begin with, and make yourself and the cause you represent appear to the rest of the people to lack integrity to say the least.


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that a non-Christian should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1 paragraphs 19 and 20), Augustine, 408CE
 
2012-04-05 09:44:36 AM  
Bevets:

Your established history of dishonesty disqualifies you as a credible source of information. Upon no occasion have you ever actually referenced any data suggesting the theory of evolution to be in error; instead, you have referenced out-of-date and irrelevant information, dishonestly divorced from context quotations, at least one demonstrably fraudulent quotation, and demonstrably fallacious arguments in an attempt to justify your religious claims.
 
2012-04-05 10:58:52 AM  

Bevets: Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine


So we have to take your word on what the writer intended, Justice Scalia?
 
2012-04-05 11:05:38 AM  

Rik01: In the teachings, we're taught that...'Inspired' humans wrote the Bible years after Jesus left.


There's your trouble right there...you cling to a belief system that you claim has empirical value, yet you admit it's actually a product of flawed humans.
 
2012-04-05 12:05:06 PM  

wiredroach: Of course it's a scientific belief. Nothing in the observable universe compels the intervention of the supernatural.


No. Scientific theories don't compel the intervention of the supernatural. Any conclusions that go further than that are philosophical in nature.

wiredroach: They don't need to; the contradictions, inaccuracies and morally questionable teachings of Christian and other faiths undermine them just fine. They certainly don't require atheists to do anything at all.


That's another issue altogether.

wiredroach: I'll paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's maxim about the likelihood of other life in the universe: either there is a God, or there isn't. Either way, the implications are staggering. I don't know how science could ever prove or disprove god, but science is the search for knowledge, so why not see where it takes us?


Because it can't take us anywhere. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the observable world, and that's it. Which means we can use it to know things about the observable world. What good would that do in answering the question of God's existence?

wiredroach: That thought doesn't scare me, but it make me wonder what Christianity is, if it decides to abandon what its sacred texts claim is the truth. There are any number of more or less literal ways to interpret scripture, but I'm not sure what the point is in believing any of it if you choose to reject the creation story that kicks it off. Just my 2¢.


Because Christianity hinges on Jesus, not on a creation story. That creation story can still have value, even if it isn't literally true. But that's besides the point.

If science can make claims about God's existence, then if nothing else you're still running into a very big problem here: It would be unconstitutional to teach science in the classroom. If teachers aren't allowed to advocate for God's existence, then why should they be allowed to teach God's nonexistence?

But that's besides the point. You're turning this conversation into a discussion on the merits of religion, but I don't see how that's important. The issue here isn't religion, per se, it's the way our society views the role of science.

We could have an objective, ideology free pursuit of knowledge. Or we can have the religious on one side and atheists on the other both using science as a tool of ideology. Judging from the way this conversation is going, a lot of you take it for granted that science is tantamount to atheism. Feel free to do so, but if you do then I'm going to continue to accuse atheists of being anti-science. You're doing just as much damage to science, science education, and scientific literacy in America as any creationist.

Atheists can pay lip service to their "love" of science, but in the end actions speak louder than words.

pixeled: If christianity stops abusing science 100%, then they will be tied with Atheists, not better than.


Krauss, Dawkins, Dennet, Myers, ... prove you wrong. Not to mention atheists on Fark and just about anywhere else atheists are found.

LovingTeacher: What would happen if christians stopped abusing science ? Then NOBODY would be abusing science!


I don't know about those comments from Craig, but my point would still stand. At any rate, if you can't see how atheists are doing science a disservice, then I can't take you seriously when you claim that creationists are bad for science. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

But frankly, I understand. Atheists have gotten their beliefs all mixed up with science for so long that I think it becomes difficult to look at the problem objectively.

LovingTeacher: Atheists are not abusing science when they say that it gives them no reason to believe in god


No, they're abusing science when they say that science inevitably leads to atheism. What they believe personally doesn't matter.

LovingTeacher: That is how science works, I believe things that I have evidence for


This statement makes no sense. Science doesn't care what you personally believe, and it's completely irrelevant. That you can't tell the difference between your personal philosophy, or beliefs, and science speaks volumes about how much atheists have their own beliefs and science mixed up. You're not actually arguing against my point, you're making it for me.

LovingTeacher: I believe things that I have evidence for, not that I wish were true or give me a good feeling.


Do you have evidence to believe that you should only believe things you have evidence for? Your epistemology is broken. But anyway, what you're saying doesn't apply to many of the atheist proselytizers like Krauss. Let's take a look at what he has to say:

"...there's no real place for God left? That'd be wonderful."

And he also says:

"[Quantum Mechanics] makes god unnecessary and redundant, [and] I find that very pleasing."

Oh and then there's this:

"I don't define myself as an atheist, I am more of an anti-theist. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I'd much rather live in a universe without one."

Atheists are part of the problem, and yes there are feelings and biases and prejudice involved.
 
2012-04-05 12:37:48 PM  

RsquaredW: Bevets: Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine

So we have to take your word on what the writer intended, Justice Scalia?


I have observed that creationists frequently believe themselves infallible, and thus incapable of erroneously interpreting scripture. They are incapable of comprehending that what they believe to be the "Word of God" may not actually be the "Word of God"; that their beliefs may be based upon a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding is incomprehensible to them.

This belief in infallibility may be why creationists rarely, if ever, acknowledge even obvious errors.
 
2012-04-05 12:55:46 PM  

IrishFarmer: No. Scientific theories don't compel the intervention of the supernatural. Any conclusions that go further than that are philosophical in nature.


That's exactly my point...nothing science has learned is explicable only by the supernatural. Therefore, there's no scientific basis for a belief in the supernatural.

IrishFarmer: Because it can't take us anywhere. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the observable world, and that's it.


Yes, and as with my first point above, science hasn't observed anything that requires the existence of god, which has some bearing on our opinion about whether he exists. But if you're arguing that god can't exert any kind of observable effect or presence in the material world, then why call him god at all?

IrishFarmer: Judging from the way this conversation is going, a lot of you take it for granted that science is tantamount to atheism.


I'm not saying anything of the kind. One can be an atheist and believe in science without insisting that science proves atheism to be correct. Atheism's an opinion, after all. What I'm saying is that the body of scientific knowledge we have at this point in history shows zero evidence for god, and therefore is consistent with an atheist or agnostic worldview. Of course it would be wrong for anyone to insist that evolution proves god doesn't exist, but apart from the most strident atheists I don't hear many people taking this position. You can't use that as a point of equivalence with the large number of creationists agitating for the teaching of creationism in schools. The people fighting the creationists aren't fighting for the teaching of atheistic conclusions in the science classroom. They're fighting for the teaching of science in the science classroom.
 
2012-04-05 01:31:24 PM  

IrishFarmer: Do you have evidence to believe that you should only believe things you have evidence for? Your epistemology is broken


The proof is in the pudding. Science has demonstrated that it is the only proven method for describing reality. No one (not even scientists) say for absolutely certain that it is the *right* way to attain knowledge, only that it is the best way that we know of.

Clearly it is vastly superior to reading the entrails of a chicken, or ancient scrolls, or faith. Unless you're typing your response from a faithputer, then attacking the epistemelogical viability of science is pretty dumb. What alternative were you suggesting we use?
 
2012-04-05 01:39:06 PM  
i281.photobucket.comView Full Size


♪ ♫ ... do you believe in magic ... la la la lala ♫ ♪
 
2012-04-05 02:00:38 PM  

Rik01: Evolution and Creationism are one and the same.


Dude I couldn't even read the rest of your possibly well thought out argument after reading this. Evolution really happened, there is evidence (and lots of it) to prove that. Creationism is what morons believe who think anything more complicated than what they can understand must be magic.

I am getting to the point where I find it hard to not think someone is retarted once I hear they're religious.
 
2012-04-05 06:02:22 PM  
All this talk about pudding and tarts is making me hungry.
 
2012-04-05 07:33:04 PM  
I know this thread is pretty much dead now, but I'll post this for shiats and giggles.

Fundies say the darndest things, quotes from christian chat rooms. Top 100. (new window)
 
2012-04-05 09:05:22 PM  
SkinnyHead:

Actually, Scopes was using evolution to teach racism and white supremacy. The evolutionary biology book he was teaching from described the white race as "the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

rwfan:

A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (usually referred to as just Civic Biology) was a biology textbook written by George William Hunter, published in 1914. It is the book which the state of Tennessee required high school teachers to use in 1925 and is best known for its section about evolution that was ruled by a local court to be in violation of the state Butler Act. It was for teaching from this textbook that John T. Scopes was brought to trial in Dayton, Tennessee in the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The views espoused in the book about evolution, race, and eugenics are common to American Progressives (especially in the work of Charles Benedict Davenport, one of the most prominent American biologists of the early 20th century, whom Hunter cites in the book).

Bevets:

Indeed, the very book -- Hunter's Civic Biology -- from which John T. Scopes taught Darwin's theory of evolution to high school students in Dayton, Tennessee... made it clear that biology had direct political implications for civic society. In discussing the "five races" of man, the text assured the all-white legally segregated high school students taught by Scopes that "the highest type of all, the Caucasians, [are] represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." The book, the avowed goal of which was the improvement of the future human race, then proposed certain eugenic remedies. ~ Alan Dershowitz

hubiestubert:

safetycap:

WizardofToast:

Bevets:


Teach The Controversy

urban.derelict:

"those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

BronyMedic:

Wait. I'm lost. What are you arguing here? Evolution, and the theory of how it occurs, is completely wrong because it was hijacked to support racism and pseudoscientific quackery (eugenics) during the first half of the 20th century?

Should Tennessee teachers have been allowed to present dissenting views on the efficacy of eugenics? or the authenticity of Piltdown? Even if such views were dismissed by the majority of academic elites?

hypnoticus ceratophrys:

On the other hand, as far back as at least the 5th century CE there were Christian theologians, most notably Augustine, warning against literal interpretations of obviously allegorical scripture for exactly that reason.

Bevets:

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine


hypnoticus ceratophrys:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that a non-Christian should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1 paragraphs 19 and 20), Augustine, 408CE


Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. ~ Augustine

hypnoticus ceratophrys:

It's easy to make anybody say anything you want if you lift a choice few of their words out of the time and context in which they were written and place them into your own without reference. You could make John Gotti sound like Mahatma Ghandi if you quote mine hard enough. You'll manage to fool those people that tend to take words at face value to begin with, and make yourself and the cause you represent appear to the rest of the people to lack integrity to say the least.

RsquaredW:

So we have to take your word on what the writer intended, Justice Scalia?

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford 1978-1989

So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct... I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this. Hugh Williamson Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford 1992-Present
 
2012-04-05 10:51:22 PM  

Bevets: reference.


Quoting Augustine and citing his words back to your website is not a reference, unless you fancy yourself Augustine.

Why is referencing important? Unless you're intentionally trying to deceive your audience, the full context of the quote gives both you and the reader a broader base of understanding for what that quote means. Let's look at this quote:

Bevets: They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine


This quote comes from Augustine's The City of God, written in the early 5th century CE. From this information that you have omitted alone, it's quite obvious he's not referring to anything remotely related to evolutionary biology. What is he referring to then? Here's a link to the text itself (new window), which you'll see pops open right to the relevant section and those before and after for reference. A quick look through that text makes it readily apparent that Augustine is speaking those words you have very selectively quoted as a defense of the Bible account of history versus that of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Macedonians, and other contemporary works. Yes, he states that "by the reckoning of the Sacred Writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." while formulating a defense for a broader topic. We also know, from Augustine's own words in the passage from The Literal Interpretation of Genesis that I quoted above, that he believes if we find our personal reckoning of the scriptures to be so in conflict with our observations of the natural world that they are quite obviously no longer realistic, that we should "take care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

Given this, it is quite blatantly obvious that Augustine:

1) did not intend the quote you attributed to him as a rebuttal of evolutionary theory, radiometric dating, or any other relevant scientific field or methodology that deals with the age of the earth, and

2) that he would not "affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" if he were around today to be presented with what we can now understand about the world around us.

Both of these factors render the quote you are using unsuitable for the context in which you are presenting it unless you are intentionally trying to be misleading.

Now, another reason having sound citations for the use of other people's words is critical if you do not wish to impugn your own integrity. This quote you attribute to Augstine:

Bevets: Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. ~ Augustine


...Is neither one that I am familiar with, nor does it seem that google is either. In fact, the only results for this quote in google is either your own words on your own website, or in your own words on various comments section around the internet... definitely not Augustine's words. So then, if that is a valid quote and not something you've made up, it would certainly be in your own best interests to cite specifically, preferably with a link, directly to the work of Augustine in which this was written. That would avoid any questioning of your own integrity in addition to providing context for your audience. This example particularly reinforces my point about referencing your own website as source material for other people's works as an inadequate form of citation.
 
2012-04-06 03:59:59 AM  
Redfox

Just read my origonal post.
 
2012-04-06 09:50:58 PM  

Rik01: Again, human's have free will.


You sound awful sure about that. This is a subject of legitimate debate among both the religious and non-religious.

For the religious, free will is at odds with the concept of divine omnipotence, since you can have one or the other but not both. The jist is if god knows everything, then he would have to know the outcome of everything from the moment of creation onwards, and thus, since he created it that way, he knew how it would all turn out, choice by choice.

For the non-religious, at the bio-chemical level, do we really have choice, or are our actions determined by the quantum and chemical states of the particles that make up our existence, and choice or even thought in general is an illusion. Once you have made a choice, it could only have happened that way, because it did.
 
2012-04-07 10:15:45 AM  

wiredroach: That's exactly my point...nothing science has learned is explicable only by the supernatural. Therefore, there's no scientific basis for a belief in the supernatural.


Science quantifies a certain subset of things, namely the observable, physical universe. What you're saying is basically a tautology: Science quantifies the things it quantifies. And I'd prefer to talk about something a bit more specific than "supernatural". That sounds like Exy-filey kinda things.

wiredroach: Yes, and as with my first point above, science hasn't observed anything that requires the existence of god, which has some bearing on our opinion about whether he exists. But if you're arguing that god can't exert any kind of observable effect or presence in the material world, then why call him god at all?


I never said He couldn't. It seems like you're conflating "scientifically quantifiable" with all epistemology. Also, it depends on what you mean by "observed anything that requires the existence of God". That's kinda the crux of the whole debate over atheism and theism, which I'd rather not rehash here. Not to be a controlling d-bag, but we were talking about the role of science in society, not whether or not God exists, per se.

wiredroach: I'm not saying anything of the kind. One can be an atheist and believe in science without insisting that science proves atheism to be correct. Atheism's an opinion, after all. What I'm saying is that the body of scientific knowledge we have at this point in history shows zero evidence for god, and therefore is consistent with an atheist or agnostic worldview.


Agree. Science is compatible with atheism, and Christianity, and Islam, and Buddhism, and Solipsism, and many other worldviews. At the same time, it is incompatible with others depending on how specific you get. If you're a scriptural literalist of a certain stripe, of any religion, then no you're out of luck.

The issue I'd still like to see atheists take up, however, is whether or not advocates on their own team are doing science a disservice. As discussed in prior posts. No offense, but if kinda felt like as I was criticizing Dawkins and Krauss you attempted to switch the issue to whether or not God exists. Not that it's completely tangential, but it is to the more specific issue of scientific literacy and whatnot.

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: The proof is in the pudding. Science has demonstrated that it is the only proven method for describing reality.


This statement makes no sense. How do you scientifically test for a metaphysical proposition like, "Science is the only proven method for describing reality"? Please don't dodge that question, I'd really like to know. I'm also not sure what you mean by reality? Reality is that which is, or can be, understood by science? That becomes circular, or at least it's an unwarranted assumption unless there's some other justification for saying so.

But this isn't really the issue. In this specific conversation, none of us are arguing over the efficacy of science. I'm not trying to say that science's role needs to change, I'm saying the metaphysical beliefs of some atheists need to change or be rephrased so as not to damage scientific literacy and so on in America.

Krauss, to reuse the example, is out in public telling people that science is proving that God doesn't need to exist, and probably doesn't exist. This (helps) turns science away from being an objective pursuit of knowledge, into being an issue for ideologues to bicker over. Namely, why would any religious person want to accept, understand, and learn about something which invalidates their faith?

It'd be one thing if science did invalidate people's faith, but it doesn't. So not only is it disingenuous, but it's disingenuous while at the same time doing damage to science.

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: Clearly it is vastly superior to reading the entrails of a chicken, or ancient scrolls, or faith. Unless you're typing your response from a faithputer, then attacking the epistemelogical viability of science is pretty dumb. What alternative were you suggesting we use?


I didn't attack the epistemological viability of science. I questioned Atheists' tactic of using science to advance atheism, which helps turn science into an issue to be bickered over on unscientific grounds. Which contributes to a culture which tries to keep evolution out of schools and which has no understanding of science and so on. I'm saying this tactic is just part of some useless, stupid culture war that's being fought for no reason.

It's curious to me that you don't see a difference between attacking pillars of the culture war, and attacking science itself.
 
2012-04-07 10:28:14 AM  

tansa: Once you have made a choice, it could only have happened that way, because it did.


Not to jump into your conversation and such, but you seem to be making a logical error.

That is, you're simply assuming what you're trying to prove. You say, "it could only have happened that way, because it did". That doesn't logically follow from anything you've said. The correct way to phrase that would be, "it necessarily has happened that way, because it did." But there's no force to this, both statements essentially say the same thing: "The choice happened, and necessarily is now what it was."

While this is true, it doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that we don't live in a universe where someone can make a choice that is simultaneously A and B. When you choose A over B, or B over A, it is necessarily true that the choice was made and was a choice, not necessarily true that you had to make the choice the way you did. If I choose A, it will then be necessarily true that I have chosen A, but had I freely chosen B, all that would mean is that after the choice it will be necessarily true that I have chosen B.

The logic of what you're saying just kinda takes us in a circle where we say, "It is what it is." Which is like the law of identity, it has its uses but it doesn't really take us to any conclusions outside of itself.
 
2012-04-07 01:11:25 PM  

IrishFarmer: Science quantifies a certain subset of things, namely the observable, physical universe. What you're saying is basically a tautology: Science quantifies the things it quantifies. And I'd prefer to talk about something a bit more specific than "supernatural". That sounds like Exy-filey kinda things.


Well...any system of discovery and classification quantifies what it quantifies...that's not so much a tautology as an exceedingly redundant partial definition. And my point is not that science can disprove god, or the supernatural, or the mystical, or whatever you choose to call it. It's that science has steadily eroded some of the key tenets of the various faiths and spiritual beliefs. You can still be a Christian, I guess, but it's not really rational to be one who still believes in a six-day creation or humanity being created as is 6,000 years ago, etc. And as more of the "facts" underpinning a given belief system fall, the likelihood of others in that system still being true diminishes, given that they're all bound up in the same sacred text.

IrishFarmer: The issue I'd still like to see atheists take up, however, is whether or not advocates on their own team are doing science a disservice.


I'm not sure what the best strategic tack for atheist scientists to take is. Certainly, Richard Dawkins' strident repudiation of religion is likely to alienate more fence-sitters than it converts to his point of view. But I think your assertion is that his position that the atheist view is correct hurts science because he's making an unprovable claim. As I said above, I don't think you can disprove god, and I don't think Dawkins can either, but I do feel he's free to look at what "evidence" exists and make a provisional ruling that others can debate. People have attempted to prove the existence of god with science for millennia; it's at least interesting to see the contrary case made. As long as people understand that science has its limitations with regard to such questions and that his arguments aren't scientific so much as philosophical with scientific underpinnings, I don't see how this type of inquiry is detrimental to the scientific enterprise as a whole.

The main enemies of scientific understanding today remain the intellectually incurious and those with religious or political axes to grind--those who choose to wear blinders because they don't wish to see where science takes them.
 
2012-04-07 01:33:46 PM  

Bevets: Indeed, the very book -- Hunter's Civic Biology -- from which John T. Scopes taught Darwin's theory of evolution to high school students in Dayton, Tennessee... made it clear that biology had direct political implications for civic society. In discussing the "five races" of man, the text assured the all-white legally segregated high school students taught by Scopes that "the highest type of all, the Caucasians, [are] represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." The book, the avowed goal of which was the improvement of the future human race, then proposed certain eugenic remedies. ~ Alan Dershowitz


You say these things as though Scopes had any say in them. To point out that early 20th century Tennessee was a racist state as though it disproves evolution is just like saying Hitler was an evolutionist...it's basically a Godwin. Though it's far more true than evolutionist Hitler...in reality, Hitler despised any form of evolution, even Lamarckism which many Communist leaders ascribed to, because it went against his dogma of a superior race of man. In fact, many of those arguing for creation use the micro-evolution argument that there can be changes within each kind (not defining what constitutes a kind)...which Hitler also used.

"those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

Much like the Philip K. Dick quote you like to throw out there...you have no idea how true that is. *coughCrusadesWitchTrialsInquisition9/11cough*
 
2012-04-07 05:05:00 PM  

wiredroach: As long as people understand that science has its limitations with regard to such questions and that his arguments aren't scientific so much as philosophical with scientific underpinnings, I don't see how this type of inquiry is detrimental to the scientific enterprise as a whole.


Hey, I'm not trying to get the last word. In fact, I wasn't going to respond since we're not disagreeing on very much at this point. But there is this.

I wouldn't complain if Krauss or Hawking or whatever were just making philosophical arguments with scientific underpinnings. However, that's not quite accurate. Hawking is the most obviously example of a contradiction to this thinking. In his new book, he goes out of his way to say, "...philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." Most atheists don't make what they're doing this obvious, which is why I chose this quote.

Now of course, Hawking is wrong and he's really just making philosophical arguments with "scientific underpinnings". However, this quote reveals a dangerous movement to conflate science with philosophy. This is what bothers me. If it weren't the case that this is what some prominent atheists were trying to do, then I would agree with you that there's no harm in it, but things are what they are.
 
2012-04-07 11:19:43 PM  
RsquaredW:

So we have to take your word on what the writer intended, Justice Scalia?

Bevets:

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford 1978-1989

So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct... I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this. ~ Hugh Williamson Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford 1992-Present


hypnoticus ceratophrys:

On the other hand, as far back as at least the 5th century CE there were Christian theologians, most notably Augustine, warning against literal interpretations of obviously allegorical scripture for exactly that reason.

Bevets:

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. ~ Augustine


hypnoticus ceratophrys:

A quick look through that text makes it readily apparent that Augustine is speaking those words you have very selectively quoted as a defense of the Bible account of history versus that of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Macedonians, and other contemporary works. Yes, he states that "by the reckoning of the Sacred Writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." while formulating a defense for a broader topic.

Are you suggesting that Augustine may have believed more than 6000 years had already passed? Do you have any support for this?

Bevets:

Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. ~ Augustine

hypnoticus ceratophrys:

Now, another reason having sound citations for the use of other people's words is critical if you do not wish to impugn your own integrity. This quote you attribute to Augstine:

...Is neither one that I am familiar with, nor does it seem that google is either. In fact, the only results for this quote in google is either your own words on your own website, or in your own words on various comments section around the internet... definitely not Augustine's words. So then, if that is a valid quote and not something you've made up, it would certainly be in your own best interests to cite specifically, preferably with a link, directly to the work of Augustine in which this was written. That would avoid any questioning of your own integrity in addition to providing context for your audience.


So when I give you a specific reference, you are willing to concede the authority of scripture?

IrishFarmer:

Science is compatible with atheism, and Christianity, and Islam, and Buddhism, and Solipsism, and many other worldviews. At the same time, it is incompatible with others depending on how specific you get. If you're a scriptural literalist of a certain stripe, of any religion, then no you're out of luck.

I have never met a YEC who rejects science.
 
2012-04-08 12:42:32 AM  

Bevets: I have never met a YEC who rejects science.


...well, I've never met an anarchist who rejects the federal government, either.

But then again, I've never met an anarchist.
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report