Religions > Atheism > As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"August Pamplona" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2003 02:17:17 PM |
| Object: |
As Americans are slowly becoming less religious, are religious Americans slowly becoming nuttier? |
New York Times article on how religious belief in the U.S.A. seems
to be becoming more mystical (extreme and irrational?) at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html
August Pamplona
P.S. Reproduced below.
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
-----------------------------------------------------------
August 15, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Believe It, or Not
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the
moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So
here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as
likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in
evolution (28 percent).
So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental
divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith.
Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a
way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible
exception of South Korea.
Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to
believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries
overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13
percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in
this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)
The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is
becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage
of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points
in the latest poll.
My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active
Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and
regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline
Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the
number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of
Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.
The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the
industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the
most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious
America.
Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians .
.. . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on
a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this
way:
"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled
and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who
were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's
choice."
The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine
America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the
evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven
(which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that
it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian
Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a
"collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly
legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were
widespread in many parts of the ancient world.
Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his
book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary
(like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the
Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal
evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been
added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different
kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).
Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite
the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91
percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an
astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.
I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why
America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of
the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious
Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to
many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society.
But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of
Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the
scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly
because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning
mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large
part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition
and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the
brain.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
23 Aug 2003 07:22:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:03:57 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f41a7b1.33661993@news...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
One of the reasons we
cannot teach religion in public schools is that everyone would have a
right
to have their version taught.
Clarification: It has nothing to do with the *inconvenience* of
teaching many versions. The reason various creation myths should not
be taught as science is, well, that they are all myths and not
science.
So what is evolutionism doing in science class??
There is no such thing as "evolutionism" outside the dishonest
fantasies of creationists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
24 Aug 2003 04:27:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:02:43 +0000 (UTC), (EAC)
wrote:
xyzzy@xyzzy.com (xyzzy) wrote in message news:<3f41a7b1.33661993@news>...
The reason various creation myths should not
be taught as science is, well, that they are all myths and not
science.
It should be noted a long time ago, the knowledge of a flat earth is
considered as a science, and if one ever said otherwise, the
scientists will be upset and defy it with all scientifical knowledges
that they got.
It wasn't "considered a science". It was an unquestioned assumption by
a lot of people. However the ancient Greeks knew it was a ball and had
calculated the diameter with surprising accuracy.
The people of Columbus' time knew it was a ball too. Columbus just
thought it was a lot smaller than it actually is.
Sailors knew it was round because of the way high points like ships'
masts appeared over the horizon first.
However you seem to want something taught as science before it has
been investigated, and you pretend that what is currently taught is
merely a belief even though it is well understood, as are its
mechanisms, and the mechanisms that cause these mechanisms.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
26 Aug 2003 10:48:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
<nospam@buzz.off> posted in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:38:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:32:14 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) posted in alt.atheism:
Passed by a large sign outside a church the other day that said "Jesus
is the answer". I wondered, what was the question - "what do you say if
you hit your thumb with a hammer?"
Works for me. But it's more polite to use his full name.
....along with his middle initial, "H". And some mention of
his mode of transport (the pogo stick).
As in JHFCOAPS?
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
27 Aug 2003 04:12:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:48:50 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
<nospam@buzz.off> posted in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:38:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:32:14 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) posted in alt.atheism:
Passed by a large sign outside a church the other day that said "Jesus
is the answer". I wondered, what was the question - "what do you say if
you hit your thumb with a hammer?"
Works for me. But it's more polite to use his full name.
....along with his middle initial, "H". And some mention of
his mode of transport (the pogo stick).
As in JHFCOAPS?
Yep.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
27 Aug 2003 10:10:52 PM |
|
|
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:1m7qkvg0fe4udtmf20eh0d8luo5sopb28u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:48:50 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
<nospam@buzz.off> posted in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:38:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:32:14 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) posted in alt.atheism:
Passed by a large sign outside a church the other day that said "Jesus
is the answer". I wondered, what was the question - "what do you say
if
you hit your thumb with a hammer?"
Works for me. But it's more polite to use his full name.
....along with his middle initial, "H". And some mention of
his mode of transport (the pogo stick).
As in JHFCOAPS?
JHTDCOADSPS.
Yep.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
28 Aug 2003 05:46:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:10:52 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> in news message
<4ye3b.19555$l41.3878772@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:1m7qkvg0fe4udtmf20eh0d8luo5sopb28u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:48:50 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
<nospam@buzz.off> posted in alt.atheism:
Works for me. But it's more polite to use his full name.
....along with his middle initial, "H". And some mention of
his mode of transport (the pogo stick).
As in JHFCOAPS?
JHTDCOADSPS.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a Disco Spinning Pogo Stick?
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
28 Aug 2003 06:49:12 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:e4nrkv4880hd5oaejsm3bph53d496bk92h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:10:52 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> in news message
<4ye3b.19555$l41.3878772@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:1m7qkvg0fe4udtmf20eh0d8luo5sopb28u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:48:50 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Bob Casanova
<nospam@buzz.off> posted in alt.atheism:
Works for me. But it's more polite to use his full name.
....along with his middle initial, "H". And some mention of
his mode of transport (the pogo stick).
As in JHFCOAPS?
JHTDCOADSPS.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a Disco Spinning Pogo Stick?
A diamond-studded pogo stick. <G>
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
29 Aug 2003 08:01:04 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:49:12 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> in news message
<R7m3b.19577$l41.4101398@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:e4nrkv4880hd5oaejsm3bph53d496bk92h@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:10:52 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> in news message
<4ye3b.19555$l41.3878772@twister.neo.rr.com> wrote:
[-----]
JHTDCOADSPS.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ on a Disco Spinning Pogo Stick?
A diamond-studded pogo stick. <G>
Ah, thank you.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Head Wrangler: EAC Petting Zoo and Cafeteria (ntie,oc)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
09 Sep 2003 10:54:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tropical Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 07:23:17 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 05:53:53 PM |
|
|
"Tropical Tim" <> wrote in message
news:5d054692.0309120426.ceb850b@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
TT,
When was this? Assumes facts not in evidence. You wouldn't make a
statement that you can't back up, would you?
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
Well, we've got this neat little trick. Scientific method, I think it's
called. Does a pretty fair job of telling us what's real and what's
illusion. Of course, you have to have some patience and not expect to get
your cracker jack prize right out of the box. You got the patience, or have
you decided to settle for the quick answer from folks who say they know
cause God told 'em?
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tropical Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 10:51:09 PM |
|
|
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message news:<sbs8b.2664$zu1.36313@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Tropical Tim" < > wrote in message
news:5d054692.0309120426.ceb850b@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
TT,
When was this? Assumes facts not in evidence. You wouldn't make a
statement that you can't back up, would you?
TM,
To be fair, you would have to ask Al Klein this question. He first
states above that "*ALL* people once believed that the world was
flat."
I was just including scientists in *All People*. Or are you messing
with me on a more personal level? Maybe you just don't like me. Darn,
you can't know what that means to me.
TT
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
Well, we've got this neat little trick. Scientific method, I think it's
called. Does a pretty fair job of telling us what's real and what's
illusion. Of course, you have to have some patience and not expect to get
your cracker jack prize right out of the box. You got the patience, or have
you decided to settle for the quick answer from folks who say they know
cause God told 'em?
TM,
You are really in a rut man. Scientific method is just another example
of a group thinking that to label a belief is to make that belief
fact. I could provide you with many hours of debate as to *scientific
method* being an illusion or perhaps only true within the area of
space known as universe. You seem to be the one settling for a quick
answer. The depth of your thinking is very shallow indeed. You use the
*God told 'em* crack to infer that I base my thinking on one of the
groups of people who believe in an absolute supreme being. This is not
so. Just another wise crack that shows your true level.
TT
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
13 Sep 2003 09:50:35 AM |
|
|
"Tropical Tim" <> wrote in message
news:5d054692.0309121954.1da54178@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:<sbs8b.2664$zu1.36313@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Tropical Tim" < > wrote in message
news:5d054692.0309120426.ceb850b@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you
and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of
people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in
the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't
make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
TT,
When was this? Assumes facts not in evidence. You wouldn't make a
statement that you can't back up, would you?
TM,
To be fair, you would have to ask Al Klein this question. He first
states above that "*ALL* people once believed that the world was
flat."
I was just including scientists in *All People*. Or are you messing
with me on a more personal level? Maybe you just don't like me. Darn,
you can't know what that means to me.
TT
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute
science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think,
the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
Well, we've got this neat little trick. Scientific method, I think
it's
called. Does a pretty fair job of telling us what's real and what's
illusion. Of course, you have to have some patience and not expect to
get
your cracker jack prize right out of the box. You got the patience, or
have
you decided to settle for the quick answer from folks who say they know
cause God told 'em?
TM,
You are really in a rut man. Scientific method is just another example
of a group thinking that to label a belief is to make that belief
fact. I could provide you with many hours of debate as to *scientific
method* being an illusion or perhaps only true within the area of
space known as universe. You seem to be the one settling for a quick
answer. The depth of your thinking is very shallow indeed. You use the
*God told 'em* crack to infer that I base my thinking on one of the
groups of people who believe in an absolute supreme being. This is not
so. Just another wise crack that shows your true level.
TT,
You can't know how much that hurts.
You seem to be having a flashback to freshman year, late at night, when
folks ponder the imponderable. Like the ultimate nature of reality, and
whether anything can be absolutely, finally known. Most of us gave that up
a while ago; it's charming that you still think that's interesting.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 06:41:39 PM |
|
|
(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309120426.ceb850b@posting.google.com>...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
Why am I not surprised that you cannot distinguish reality from
non-reality . . . . . . . .
I hear they give people lithium or something for that.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 08:19:02 AM |
|
|
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists. (Note, the objection
to Columbus' journey was *not* that the world was flat, but that it was
*too* *large* - and they were *correct* about that).
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
He did not claim to *know* what reality is. He claimed merely that your
opinion, or his opinion, or my opinion does not *change* reality.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 04:26:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:19:02 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net>:
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists. (Note, the objection
to Columbus' journey was *not* that the world was flat, but that it was
*too* *large* - and they were *correct* about that).
Yeah, he lucked into a pair of unknown (to most Europeans)
continents which shortened his prospective journey by around
8000 miles, and IIRC it is claimed that at his death he
*still* believed he'd reached the East Indies.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 05:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:26:26 +0000, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:19:02 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net>:
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC), *ALL*
people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make them
correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists. (Note, the objection
to Columbus' journey was *not* that the world was flat, but that it was
*too* *large* - and they were *correct* about that).
Yeah, he lucked into a pair of unknown (to most Europeans) continents
which shortened his prospective journey by around 8000 miles, and IIRC it
is claimed that at his death he *still* believed he'd reached the East
Indies.
No, definitely by the end of his life he had dropped that story. His later
writings--which are quite weird--he compared himself to all kinds of
biblical figures and ranted about god appointing him to open up an entire
hemisphere and such. He was quite irritated at the crown for not giving
him what he believed was his "due" (they spent most of the rest of his
life ignoring him).
There are strong hints that the "Indies" story was a dodge. A deliberate
one he tossed around to "throw off" the "competition." Columbus even
forged the distances he traveled to make it harder to trace his voyage.
Contra the Irving stories (which are just silly), the intellectuals of the
time had a fairly accurate measure of the Earth's size. Columbus appears
to have set out *specifically to find new land. I suspect the only thing
he died not knowing was the sheer size of what he'd stumbled over.
Ironically, the silly story about his argument with the intellectuals of
his day was backwards in several ways. Especially in that what he did
argue was for a smaller Earth. And was wrong. The guys he allegedly--per
Irving--argued with were *right.
Of course, none of them believed in a flat earth by then. The argument was
how big it was.
Columbus had access to materials (maps and such) that could explain why
he'd be so hot to set out with a charter that included claiming "new
lands." Folks knew by then the Earth was a sphere and quite large (though
Columbus pig headedly thought it was smaller than it was). There were a
lot of reasons at the time to suspect there was *something out there.
He shows, to my mind, every sign of being a guy who saw dollar signs
because he believed there were significant finds to be made, spent a great
deal of effort trying to throw other people off, and certainly *acted as
if he'd found something big and deserved to be showered with rewards for
it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
13 Sep 2003 06:05:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:41:03 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com>:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:26:26 +0000, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:19:02 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net>:
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC), *ALL*
people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make them
correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists. (Note, the objection
to Columbus' journey was *not* that the world was flat, but that it was
*too* *large* - and they were *correct* about that).
Yeah, he lucked into a pair of unknown (to most Europeans) continents
which shortened his prospective journey by around 8000 miles, and IIRC it
is claimed that at his death he *still* believed he'd reached the East
Indies.
No, definitely by the end of his life he had dropped that story. His later
writings--which are quite weird--he compared himself to all kinds of
biblical figures and ranted about god appointing him to open up an entire
hemisphere and such. He was quite irritated at the crown for not giving
him what he believed was his "due" (they spent most of the rest of his
life ignoring him).
Thanks for the correction.
There are strong hints that the "Indies" story was a dodge. A deliberate
one he tossed around to "throw off" the "competition." Columbus even
forged the distances he traveled to make it harder to trace his voyage.
Contra the Irving stories (which are just silly), the intellectuals of the
time had a fairly accurate measure of the Earth's size. Columbus appears
to have set out *specifically to find new land. I suspect the only thing
he died not knowing was the sheer size of what he'd stumbled over.
Ironically, the silly story about his argument with the intellectuals of
his day was backwards in several ways. Especially in that what he did
argue was for a smaller Earth. And was wrong. The guys he allegedly--per
Irving--argued with were *right.
Hmmm... If he genuinely believed in the 17kmi-circumference
Earth (which I've read he did), that would argue in favor of
a genuine try for the Orient. Remember that "new lands"
could have meant (and usually did, given the mindset of the
times) "lands unknown to most Europeans which are therefore
open to exploitation". Truly *unknown* lands (such as the
Americas) weren't required.
Of course, none of them believed in a flat earth by then. The argument was
how big it was.
Yep. Actually, this was common knowledge (at least among the
educated) at least since the time of Aristotle; in fact, the
"size" argument dated from around then. IIRC Aristotle
derived the 17kmi figure while a couple centuries later
Eratosthenes derived one slightly larger than the true value
of around 25kmi.
Columbus had access to materials (maps and such) that could explain why
he'd be so hot to set out with a charter that included claiming "new
lands." Folks knew by then the Earth was a sphere and quite large (though
Columbus pig headedly thought it was smaller than it was). There were a
lot of reasons at the time to suspect there was *something out there.
True, but again, if he believed the smaller size was
correct, there wouldn't have been much room for major
unknown lands to the west between Europe and the Indies.
He shows, to my mind, every sign of being a guy who saw dollar signs
because he believed there were significant finds to be made, spent a great
deal of effort trying to throw other people off, and certainly *acted as
if he'd found something big and deserved to be showered with rewards for
it...
Agreed.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tropical Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 10:28:52 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<brh3mv02ajd1g4m0ln1h7he0pnrerp6go8@4ax.com>...
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists.
Mr. Friesen,
Scientists have been noted much earlier than the 15th Century. Do you
consider Medicine as a science?
Here is just one example of THOUSANDS. It would just be boring to
provide you with a list.
A quick search of the quote below will give you more information about
this example:
"One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an
eminent figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as
Avicenna (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original
renown as one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in
history. His most important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a
treatise on Cardiac drugs. The 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense
encyclopedia of medicine. It contains some of the most illuminating
thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy;
contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and
soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and
perversions; of nervous ailments."
He did not claim to *know* what reality is. He claimed merely that your
opinion, or his opinion, or my opinion does not *change* reality.
The peace of God be with you.
Again, I hear an absolute. Do you claim that what you see as *reality*
is absolutly *the* reality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
13 Sep 2003 08:00:20 PM |
|
|
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<brh3mv02ajd1g4m0ln1h7he0pnrerp6go8@4ax.com>...
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists.
Mr. Friesen,
Scientists have been noted much earlier than the 15th Century. Do you
consider Medicine as a science?
Short answer - no. More complete answer below.
*Modern* *research* medicine is a science. Ordinary *clinical*
medicine is an *engineering* discipline, not a scientific discipline.
By far the great majority of doctors are *not* scientists, and do not
perform science.
And while the philosophical predecessors of science can be traced back
to Classical Greece, if not to the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the final
coalescence of these ideas into true science did not occur until around
the 15th century (or even later).
He did not claim to *know* what reality is. He claimed merely that your
opinion, or his opinion, or my opinion does not *change* reality.
Again, I hear an absolute. Do you claim that what you see as *reality*
is absolutly *the* reality?
No, I make no such claim. I do *not* claim to "know" reality with any
final certainty. But I have observed that no matter how hard I *wish*
for reality to be different than it is, it always fails.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
13 Sep 2003 12:07:03 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (Tropical Tim) wrote in
<5d054692.0309121932.49ee82cf@posting.google.com>:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<brh3mv02ajd1g4m0ln1h7he0pnrerp6go8@4ax.com>...
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
This is _your_ absolute. Care to back it up with actual evidence?
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists.
Mr. Friesen,
Scientists have been noted much earlier than the 15th Century. Do you
consider Medicine as a science?
Here is just one example of THOUSANDS. It would just be boring to
provide you with a list.
A quick search of the quote below will give you more information about
this example:
"One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an
eminent figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as
Avicenna (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original
renown as one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in
history. His most important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a
treatise on Cardiac drugs. The 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense
encyclopedia of medicine. It contains some of the most illuminating
thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy;
contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and
soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and
perversions; of nervous ailments."
He did not claim to *know* what reality is. He claimed merely that your
opinion, or his opinion, or my opinion does not *change* reality.
The peace of God be with you.
Again, I hear an absolute. Do you claim that what you see as *reality*
is absolutly *the* reality?
Your point?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 10:43:46 PM |
|
|
Tropical Tim wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<brh3mv02ajd1g4m0ln1h7he0pnrerp6go8@4ax.com>...
(Tropical Tim) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Actually, at that time there *were* no scientists.
Mr. Friesen,
Scientists have been noted much earlier than the 15th Century. Do you
consider Medicine as a science?
Here is just one example of THOUSANDS. It would just be boring to
provide you with a list.
A quick search of the quote below will give you more information about
this example:
"One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an
eminent figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as
Avicenna (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original
renown as one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in
history. His most important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a
treatise on Cardiac drugs. The 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense
encyclopedia of medicine. It contains some of the most illuminating
thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy;
contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and
soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and
perversions; of nervous ailments."
TT, when *all* people believed the world was flat (before, say, 500
BCE), there were no scientists. Why are you talking about medicine in
the Middle Ages?
He did not claim to *know* what reality is. He claimed merely that your
opinion, or his opinion, or my opinion does not *change* reality.
The peace of God be with you.
Again, I hear an absolute. Do you claim that what you see as *reality*
is absolutly *the* reality?
Al's claim was, "Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what
you think, the universe doesn't care." Nobody claimed absolute knowledge.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 12:07:06 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, (Tropical Tim) wrote in
<5d054692.0309120426.ceb850b@posting.google.com>:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about, but I'll be fair.
Please point out _one_ scientist who claimed that the world was flat.
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
Why do you think there is an absolute?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 04:25:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:23:17 +0000 (UTC),
Tropical Tim <> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
I guess that depends on what you mean by scientist. Since it has been known
for over 2,500 years that the Earth is round, scientists as most people
(possibly even including yourself) have always known it was round. Now, if
you are referring to that sad little myth about Columbus, then I can't help
you much there.
From life experience, I've learned that
even the agnostic viewpoint is more popular than the absolute science
viewpoint.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. Regardless of what you think, the
universe doesn't care.
So, you know what is real and what isn't? To the absolute? Please tell
me how you know this.
That's the beauty of science. It doesn't depend upon any individual's
perceptions. Why do you suppose that the scientific method was developed?
I await your venemous evasions with glee...
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 11:31:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:23:17 +0000, Tropical Tim wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<a48tlvk246rsvehpimrbtf5mkeuo75faar@Pern.rk>...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
Aaron Clausen,
You are such an arrogant, conceited twit. This may be hard for you and
your science fanatics to deal with, but you are the minority of people
who believe as you do. By far, the majority of people believe in the
creationist point of view.
*ALL* people once believed that the world was flat. That didn't make
them correct.
*All* scientists believed in the flat world also. They were wrong too.
What scientists?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
09 Sep 2003 11:20:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Evolution is an observation, the observation that you're different
than your parent. Unless you believe that what we observe is
non-real, you can't argue with evolution.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tropical Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 12:23:51 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<uc8tlvs0g77n3sh9m60quvvtk7uiamh9v6@Pern.rk>...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Evolution is an observation, the observation that you're different
than your parent. Unless you believe that what we observe is
non-real, you can't argue with evolution.
I indeed believe that there is a possiblity that any or all of the
observations made by some or all beings is non-real. Absolutes are
impossible. I choose to believe in evolution but that doesn't make it
real.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 06:35:38 PM |
|
|
(Tropical Tim) wrote in message news:<5d054692.0309120432.4bf09a0c@posting.google.com>...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<uc8tlvs0g77n3sh9m60quvvtk7uiamh9v6@Pern.rk>...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Evolution is an observation, the observation that you're different
than your parent. Unless you believe that what we observe is
non-real, you can't argue with evolution.
I indeed believe that there is a possiblity that any or all of the
observations made by some or all beings is non-real. Absolutes are
impossible. I choose to believe in evolution but that doesn't make it
real.
How about gravity. Is that real?
If gravity is real, why is it real but evolution isn't.
If gravity is not real, please come to my house --- there's a big
bridge nearby that I'd like you to jump off for me and thus
demonstrate to me that gravity is not real.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 02:03:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:23:51 +0000 (UTC),
Tropical Tim <> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<uc8tlvs0g77n3sh9m60quvvtk7uiamh9v6@Pern.rk>...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Evolution is an observation, the observation that you're different
than your parent. Unless you believe that what we observe is
non-real, you can't argue with evolution.
I indeed believe that there is a possiblity that any or all of the
observations made by some or all beings is non-real. Absolutes are
impossible. I choose to believe in evolution but that doesn't make it
real.
That's why the scientific method works the way it does.
I await your venom and attacks.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tropical Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: 72% of Americans are creationists!? |
12 Sep 2003 10:58:50 PM |
|
|
AC <taocow@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbm464s.1b0.taocow@namibia.tandem>...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:23:51 +0000 (UTC),
Tropical Tim < > wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<uc8tlvs0g77n3sh9m60quvvtk7uiamh9v6@Pern.rk>...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:04:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Tropical Tim) posted in alt.atheism:
You present your thoughts in a concise manner. I do wish to answer
your question. I work as a software developer and appreciate the
proper use of logic and semantics. My opinion on evolution is that it
does seem that the physical science used to show the likelihood of
this being true is accurate to the extent of the current level of
knowledge as of today. By my phrasing, I'm sure that you see the
direction I'm going. Some or all of our knowledge may be non-real in
the sense of being an illusion. That possibility will always exist.
Evolution is an observation, the observation that you're different
than your parent. Unless you believe that what we observe is
non-real, you can't argue with evolution.
I indeed believe that there is a possiblity that any or all of the
observations made by some or all beings is non-real. Absolutes are
impossible. I choose to believe in evolution but that doesn't make it
real.
That's why the scientific method works the way it does.
I await your venom and attacks.
AC,
There you go again. You speak of *scientific method* as the God folks
speak of the bible.
Scientific method is just a label given to what might be found to be
wrong tommorow. Man made. Do any of the Science bunch in this group
know what an absolute is and why it may not exist? Come on now, this
is something a 20 year old should be able to understand.
No venom. Not an attack. Just logic.
TT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
