| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 01:41:42 PM |
| Object: |
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "Mujin" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2004 09:20:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:40:05 +0000 (UTC), "Larry C. Lyons"
<LarryCLyons@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote:
Mujin wrote:
Nothing exploded. Before the Big Band there was, literally, nothing.
^^^^^^^^^
No space, no time, no matter, no energy. Nothing.
Big swing fan, are you? ;)
Gee, I meant to write, "Before *AC/DC* there was, literally, nothing."
Blasphemy! "Before *Led Zeppellin* there was, literally, nothing.
Heretic! It was the Stones!
What was I thinking!
--
K
The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not so quick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 07:57:30 PM |
|
|
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang". First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
I don't know which is funnier. That you think you understand
this or that you believe it. Science Fiction takes the place of
religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 08:59:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:57:30 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang". First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
I don't know which is funnier. That you think you understand
this or that you believe it. Science Fiction takes the place of
religion.
Do you have a specific critique of Big Bang cosmology, or are these little
arguments from ignorance supposed to impress someone? Why don't you start
by explaining what you think Big Bang cosmology states in your own words?
Certainly, if you think it is science fiction, then you must have some
understanding of why cosmologists have accepted the inflationary model.
You do know what the Big Bang model has for supporting evidence and what
exactly it says about the earliest stages of the inflation, don't you?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2004 06:58:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:59:57 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:57:30 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
I don't know which is funnier. That you think you understand
this or that you believe it. Science Fiction takes the place of
religion.
Do you have a specific critique of Big Bang cosmology, or are these little
arguments from ignorance supposed to impress someone? Why don't you start
by explaining what you think Big Bang cosmology states in your own words?
Certainly, if you think it is science fiction, then you must have some
understanding of why cosmologists have accepted the inflationary model.
You do know what the Big Bang model has for supporting evidence and what
exactly it says about the earliest stages of the inflation, don't you?
He knows that it doesn't include his god, so he knows all he wants to
know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 07:57:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:25:37 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2sqmf.144.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:04:06 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2rd6u.68.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
<snip>
It's not an insult against dogs, it's an insult against you. The first
stars were not formed for dirt, but from hydrogen. Dirt is a byproduct
of
the first generations of stars, not the other way around.
The primordial egg was a ball of hydrogen?
What the ***** is the primordial egg?
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at the Big
Bang.
The proper word is "Universe".
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 12:34:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:04:06 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2rd6u.68.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:18:02 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2r7bg.s8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:41:12 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2q3r2.r4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
<snip>
So you want your children taught Satanism? Is that what you mean
Mark?
The majority accepts creation. Very few accept Satanism.
What does the majority have to do with the Constitution?
Majority rules; minority rights.
There's that First Amendment which makes it pretty clear that there is
more
to the US Constitution than that.
Which could mean putting creation back in the textbooks.
Creation is not science and does not belong in science text books.
Creation works with science...science could not exist without it.
Example: the Big Bang could not work unless there were some creative
force
at work with it to form dirt into stars, galaxies, and finally,
people.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I mean you
are
truly bereft of even sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable sounding
strawman. I'm beginning to think that my dog knows more about science
than
you do.
Now that is not much of an argument, like the one I gave.
And I don't appreciate you putting down dogs...dogs are very noble
creatures.
It's not an insult against dogs, it's an insult against you. The first
stars were not formed for dirt, but from hydrogen. Dirt is a byproduct of
the first generations of stars, not the other way around.
The primordial egg was a ball of hydrogen?
What the ***** is the primordial egg?
Do you know how long that would
last?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
It would never be an egg from which to have the Big Bang at all.
What egg?
Even if it were hydrogen...that would have as much trouble becoming people
as dirt would.
I'm sorry Mark, but you've got your new-age gobbley-gook mistaken with
reality. This cosmic egg ***** isn't science and from your desire to
turn the inflationary model into some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo all
other stupidity flows.
And whatever may have been the cause of the Big Bang (which you so clearly
don't know the first thing about other than some half-remembered top
paragraph of some popular science magazine as far as I can tell),
inserting
your favorite deity in there is nothing more than a god of the gaps
argument.
I'm just discussing it with you, Aaron. There is no reason to get all
steamed about it. I'm sure you have a valid perspective somewhere.
My perspective is that I don't make up new-age ***** when I don't have
the proper perspective. I don't talk about "cosmic eggs" or any of the
othre ill-informed pseudo-metaphysicsl drivel that you seem to espouse.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
16 Feb 2004 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
In article <slrnc2r7bg.s8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>,
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:41:12 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2q3r2.r4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:07:15 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Not so quick" <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:Ag_Wb.39463$QJ3.31307@fed1read04...
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2o7qb.jk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:57:53 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ng4v.u8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:19 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2l228.1i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:41:21 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote, among other things...
Most likely (unless you are insane) your top priority is
the
survival
of mankind. Think about it - there is nothing you would
not
sacrafice in your life if it would keep all mankind from
being
extinguished.
Right. But what about the way a colony of ants defends
the
queen?
Is there some head of mankind, some God that we would
defend?
If aliens landed and threatened to wipe out humanity, I'd
gladly
defend
my
fellow humans. Heck, if some aliens came down and
threatened
to
kill
all
dogs, I'd be in on their defense as well. But if aliens
came
down
and
threatened to kill God, I'd tell them "Go ahead, and let me
know
where
you
found him."
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
What would 'killing God' mean? That the aliens would
burn down churches, burn Bibles, pass laws that God
couldn't be talked about...
No, it would mean finding this being and wiping him out. As an
atheist, I
would think the whole venture idiotic, but if an advanced
civilization
wanted to wipe out a fictitious Hebrew deity, then all the
power
to
them.
As to burning down churches, burning bibles, passing laws that
made-up
gods
couldn't be talked about, why would I want that?
Oh I get it. You've got a persecution complex. You think
because
some
folks don't want religion shoved down their children's throats
in
schools,
they're trying to ban your particular deity. I see.
I know of no one trying to ban the mention of your deity. I
know
of
a
few
school boards here and there down in the States who are finally
beginning
to
understand that public schools are not the place for Baptist
pastors
to
pal
around with the kiddies during school hours.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
To me, honestly as I can be right now, my internal experience
with an intelligence and greater goodness and more human being
is very important. Sometimes I think Eric Berne's idea of ego
states is close to reality. I'm not sure whether the child ego
state's
intelligence has been oppressed and is trying to come out or
whether there is an instinct that an instinct greater than my
consciousness can rule me if I let it. But I do object to people
having
tried to control me.
Maybe prayer should be banned in classes but do you really think
that a child giving a valedictorian speech should be banned from
mentioning their religion?
Here's where we get into that wonderful grey area between
"mentioning"
and
"promoting".
A child can get in trouble for say "God."
I'm not aware of children getting in trouble for using the word
"God".
That's not right. And should tax money for schools only go to
the
places that don't want religion taught,
The Constitution fo the United States effectively severs church
and
state.
Government cannot be used to push any religion.
or should parents have the
choice of how their education dollars are spent?
Of course parents have a right, providing they don't violate the
Constitution in doing so.
Are you saying
that religious people's tax dollars should be taken from them to
be spent on an education that goes against their beliefs?
I'm saying that tax dollars spent on education should not be used
to
support
anyone's beliefs.
Tell you what. If you're willing to allow Wiccans to promote
their
beliefs
in public schools, and Shintoists and Buddhists, and if you'll
accept
your
child be forced to listen to someone say "there is no god of any
kind",
then
I'll be perfectly happy to allow Yahweh to be promoted.
Or we can all agree that public schools are not the place to
promote
any
religion. It's up to you. Do you want Satanism promoted in the
classroom,
or not?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that
is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion
ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
I agree. Maybe both points of view should be presented so that children
can
make up their own mind.
So you want your children taught Satanism? Is that what you mean Mark?
The majority accepts creation. Very few accept Satanism.
What does the majority have to do with the Constitution?
Which could mean putting creation back in the textbooks.
Creation is not science and does not belong in science text books.
Creation works with science...science could not exist without it.
Example: the Big Bang could not work unless there were some creative force
at work with it to form dirt into stars, galaxies, and finally, people.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I mean you are
truly bereft of even sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable sounding
strawman. I'm beginning to think that my dog knows more about science than
you do.
Perhaps your _dog's breakfast_ knows more about science than he does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 11:18:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:58:22 -0500, AC wrote
(in message <slrnc2r7bg.s8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>):
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
That became clear a long time ago.
I mean you are
truly bereft of even sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable sounding
strawman. I'm beginning to think that my dog knows more about science than
you do.
A banana slug knows more about science than does Not So Bright.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not so quick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 11:31:42 PM |
|
|
You win.
"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC531A4E0017D29DF03055B0@enews.newsguy.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:58:22 -0500, AC wrote
(in message <slrnc2r7bg.s8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>):
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
That became clear a long time ago.
I mean you are
truly bereft of even sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable sounding
strawman. I'm beginning to think that my dog knows more about science
than
you do.
A banana slug knows more about science than does Not So Bright.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 05:30:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 0:31:42 -0500, Not so quick wrote
(in message <VqiXb.40580$QJ3.33011@fed1read04>):
You win.
Geez, laddie, all you had to do was answer a few simple questions. You've
refused to do so, while demanding that _I_ answer _your_ questions, and
straight-out lying when I point out that I answered yours and it's only fair
that you answer a few of mine.
you can't answer the question "Why should the rest of the world give a damn
about your religious opinions?"
And despite _your_ personal attack on _me_ stating that I did naughty things
to someone named Mark Ernest, you can't tell me who the hell he is, or when I
did whatever I did to him that was so bad, or even what I did.
And you can't tell us why your ignorance should be of importance to anyone
but you.
And you can't point out where I made a 'personal attack' wrt your handle.
And now you're (ick) top-posting. And after you said that you weren't gonna
reply to me anymore, either.
Perhaps I've insulted those poor banana slugs.
"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC531A4E0017D29DF03055B0@enews.newsguy.com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:58:22 -0500, AC wrote
(in message <slrnc2r7bg.s8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>):
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
That became clear a long time ago.
I mean you are
truly bereft of even sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable sounding
strawman. I'm beginning to think that my dog knows more about science
than
you do.
A banana slug knows more about science than does Not So Bright.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mujin" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 10:20:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:07:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Not so quick" <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:Ag_Wb.39463$QJ3.31307@fed1read04...
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2o7qb.jk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:57:53 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ng4v.u8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:19 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2l228.1i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:41:21 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote, among other things...
Most likely (unless you are insane) your top priority is the
survival
of mankind. Think about it - there is nothing you would
not
sacrafice in your life if it would keep all mankind from
being
extinguished.
Right. But what about the way a colony of ants defends the
queen?
Is there some head of mankind, some God that we would defend?
If aliens landed and threatened to wipe out humanity, I'd
gladly
defend
my
fellow humans. Heck, if some aliens came down and threatened
to
kill
all
dogs, I'd be in on their defense as well. But if aliens came
down
and
threatened to kill God, I'd tell them "Go ahead, and let me
know
where
you
found him."
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
What would 'killing God' mean? That the aliens would
burn down churches, burn Bibles, pass laws that God
couldn't be talked about...
No, it would mean finding this being and wiping him out. As an
atheist, I
would think the whole venture idiotic, but if an advanced
civilization
wanted to wipe out a fictitious Hebrew deity, then all the power
to
them.
As to burning down churches, burning bibles, passing laws that
made-up
gods
couldn't be talked about, why would I want that?
Oh I get it. You've got a persecution complex. You think because
some
folks don't want religion shoved down their children's throats in
schools,
they're trying to ban your particular deity. I see.
I know of no one trying to ban the mention of your deity. I know
of
a
few
school boards here and there down in the States who are finally
beginning
to
understand that public schools are not the place for Baptist
pastors
to
pal
around with the kiddies during school hours.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
To me, honestly as I can be right now, my internal experience
with an intelligence and greater goodness and more human being
is very important. Sometimes I think Eric Berne's idea of ego
states is close to reality. I'm not sure whether the child ego
state's
intelligence has been oppressed and is trying to come out or
whether there is an instinct that an instinct greater than my
consciousness can rule me if I let it. But I do object to people
having
tried to control me.
Maybe prayer should be banned in classes but do you really think
that a child giving a valedictorian speech should be banned from
mentioning their religion?
Here's where we get into that wonderful grey area between
"mentioning"
and
"promoting".
A child can get in trouble for say "God."
I'm not aware of children getting in trouble for using the word
"God".
That's not right. And should tax money for schools only go to the
places that don't want religion taught,
The Constitution fo the United States effectively severs church and
state.
Government cannot be used to push any religion.
or should parents have the
choice of how their education dollars are spent?
Of course parents have a right, providing they don't violate the
Constitution in doing so.
Are you saying
that religious people's tax dollars should be taken from them to
be spent on an education that goes against their beliefs?
I'm saying that tax dollars spent on education should not be used to
support
anyone's beliefs.
Tell you what. If you're willing to allow Wiccans to promote their
beliefs
in public schools, and Shintoists and Buddhists, and if you'll accept
your
child be forced to listen to someone say "there is no god of any
kind",
then
I'll be perfectly happy to allow Yahweh to be promoted.
Or we can all agree that public schools are not the place to promote
any
religion. It's up to you. Do you want Satanism promoted in the
classroom,
or not?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion
ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
I agree. Maybe both points of view should be presented so that children can
make up their own mind.
"Both" points of view? There are rather more than two points of view.
Indeed, if every religious point of view were presented to students in
enough detail to at least give them a decent grasp of what it says,
there would be no time left for other subjects.
Which could mean putting creation back in the textbooks.
Yes! You are so right! We *should* teach the children that when
Daruma read the sutras aloud, monkeys were transformed into men. Only
then will they have a truly balanced view of the big picture! After
all, if we leave them to the way things are now - with no mention of
religion at all - they might, in unguided thinking for themselves,
come to the conclusion that there *is* a spirit, when the spiritless
nature of human life and the meaningless of mortal suffering really
ought to be obvious, with the right guidance of course.
--
K
If you bow at all bow low.
Chinese Proverb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 06:12:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:05:39 +0000 (UTC), "\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank"
<lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote:
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at the Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang". First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks. Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that is a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
The Abbe Lemaitre who was one of the earliest proponents of the big
bang, called it the cosmic egg.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 08:24:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:25:13 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:402eb867$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang".
Something had to have exploded. Otherwise the galaxies today would not be
flying away from the same point. Otherwise it would not have even been a
Big Bang.
Why?
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that is a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
<sigh>
No WONDER everyone thinks creationists are uneducated idiots.
So you think matter just happens into human form?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 09:45:08 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s0mt201lvp3lj45g8jvpsi0mfeu0o7c7gu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:25:13 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:402eb867$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang".
Something had to have exploded. Otherwise the galaxies today would not
be
flying away from the same point. Otherwise it would not have even been a
Big Bang.
Why?
It is called Big Bang. Have you ever heard of a Bang that did not involve
an explosion??
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something. The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that is
a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
But Sagan got the idea popular.
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2004 10:29:05 AM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
It is called Big Bang. Have you ever heard of a Bang that did not involve
an explosion??
The Big Bang was not an "explosion", junior. You can wave your arms
around all you want. Won't help. The Big Bang will still not be an
"explosion". <shrug>
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something.
Why.
What are virtual particles made of.
The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
The amount of matter/ebnergy in the universe is actually zero.
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
So God is POOFING virtual particle pairs inside your computer monitor
right now? COOOLL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Idiot.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that is
a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
But Sagan got the idea popular.
So what.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 11:29:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:45:08 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s0mt201lvp3lj45g8jvpsi0mfeu0o7c7gu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:25:13 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:402eb867$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at the
Big Bang".
Something had to have exploded. Otherwise the galaxies today would not
be
flying away from the same point. Otherwise it would not have even been a
Big Bang.
Why?
It is called Big Bang. Have you ever heard of a Bang that did not involve
an explosion??
It's proper name is the inflationary model. Big Bang does, in those that
don't understand what is being talked about, invoke notions of an explosion.
Rightfully it is the expansion of space-time. The Big Bang was not an
explosion in the common sense of the word
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something. The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
That really doesn't answer the question as to why it need be made of
anything.
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
It certainly isn't a guided process. Virtual particles indicate that, at
the most basic level, the universe is an inconstant, bizarre place that
little resembles the Newtonian-Einsteinian universe we observe with our
eyes.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that is
a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
But Sagan got the idea popular.
Sagan was a great popularizer. As with all analogies, one must be cautious
in taking them too far. Frankly I think Sagan sometimes went a little too
far, though I admit I couldn't do half the job he could.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2004 11:42:28 PM |
|
|
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2u136.i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:45:08 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s0mt201lvp3lj45g8jvpsi0mfeu0o7c7gu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:25:13 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:402eb867$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big Bang".
Something had to have exploded. Otherwise the galaxies today would
not
be
flying away from the same point. Otherwise it would not have even
been a
Big Bang.
Why?
It is called Big Bang. Have you ever heard of a Bang that did not
involve
an explosion??
It's proper name is the inflationary model. Big Bang does, in those that
don't understand what is being talked about, invoke notions of an
explosion.
Rightfully it is the expansion of space-time. The Big Bang was not an
explosion in the common sense of the word
Come on, either the thing blue up to kingdom come or it didn't. It can't
blow up sort of.
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until
AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something. The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
That really doesn't answer the question as to why it need be made of
anything.
If you are saying that everything comes from nothing, you are more of a
creationist than most.
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
It certainly isn't a guided process. Virtual particles indicate that, at
the most basic level, the universe is an inconstant, bizarre place that
little resembles the Newtonian-Einsteinian universe we observe with our
eyes.
It can't be that bizarre if life came from it. Something as complex as life
would take a lot of guiding of forces that resulted fromt the Big Bang.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that
is
a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly
by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
But Sagan got the idea popular.
Sagan was a great popularizer. As with all analogies, one must be
cautious
in taking them too far. Frankly I think Sagan sometimes went a little too
far, though I admit I couldn't do half the job he could.
I could watch the tapes of his show over and over.
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2004 10:32:30 AM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2u136.i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
<snip>
Rightfully it is the expansion of space-time. The Big Bang was not an
explosion in the common sense of the word
Come on, either the thing blue up to kingdom come or it didn't.
It didn't. There was nothing there to "blow up".
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance so clearly.
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something. The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
That really doesn't answer the question as to why it need be made of
anything.
If you are saying that everything comes from nothing, you are more of a
creationist than most.
That's nice. So what?
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
It certainly isn't a guided process. Virtual particles indicate that, at
the most basic level, the universe is an inconstant, bizarre place that
little resembles the Newtonian-Einsteinian universe we observe with our
eyes.
It can't be that bizarre if life came from it. Something as complex as life
would take a lot of guiding of forces that resulted fromt the Big Bang.
Says you. <shrug> Of course, soemthing so vast and complex as to be
able to guide the forces that produced life from the Big Bang would,
itself, would be soo complex that it too would need a lot of guiding
forces to produce IT. Right?
I could watch the tapes of his show over and over.
Maybe you should, until you finally udnerstand them and elarn some
fourth-grade scienec about the Big Bang. Right now, you just sound like
an uneducated idiot who has no idea what he's yammering about.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2004 11:15:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 05:42:28 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2u136.i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:45:08 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s0mt201lvp3lj45g8jvpsi0mfeu0o7c7gu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:25:13 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:402eb867$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
That is what some call the mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big
Bang.
Uh, junior, there WAS no "mass of matter that finally exploded at
the
Big Bang".
Something had to have exploded. Otherwise the galaxies today would
not
be
flying away from the same point. Otherwise it would not have even
been a
Big Bang.
Why?
It is called Big Bang. Have you ever heard of a Bang that did not
involve
an explosion??
It's proper name is the inflationary model. Big Bang does, in those that
don't understand what is being talked about, invoke notions of an
explosion.
Rightfully it is the expansion of space-time. The Big Bang was not an
explosion in the common sense of the word
Come on, either the thing blue up to kingdom come or it didn't. It can't
blow up sort of.
It did not blow up. Space-time began to expand, becoming less dense, less
hot and much bigger. "Big Bang" is just a popular name that, unfortunately,
in people like you seems to generate the misconception that it was an
explosion.
First, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" -- it was an
expansion of spacetime. Second, there was no matter at all until
AFTER
the Big Bang, when it cooled enough to form leptons and quarks.
Then what was the primordial egg made of?
Why did it need to be "made" of anything?
If all of matter of the collection of galaxies that we call our universe
came from it, then it must have been made of something. The amount of
matter/energy in the universe is a constant.
That really doesn't answer the question as to why it need be made of
anything.
If you are saying that everything comes from nothing, you are more of a
creationist than most.
I'm saying that I actually don't know, and that I won't make up stories
about eggs and gods and such to fill in that gap in our knowledge.
Science already knows about particle pairs appearing out of nothing.
It's part of quantum mechanics.
There's your creation.
It certainly isn't a guided process. Virtual particles indicate that, at
the most basic level, the universe is an inconstant, bizarre place that
little resembles the Newtonian-Einsteinian universe we observe with our
eyes.
It can't be that bizarre if life came from it. Something as complex as life
would take a lot of guiding of forces that resulted fromt the Big Bang.
Life is a chemical process. Chemical processes work at a much higher,
stabler level than the quantum world. Chemical processes are predictable
and non-random. As to life, modern life is complex, the earliest life very
likely was not nearly so complex, and pushing farther back we have
self-replicating molecules that were even less complex.
And modern cosmology considers the universe as having zero sum: matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity adds up to zero.
Third,
I've never heard any cosmologist refer to any "cosmic egg" --- that
is
a
term taken from Hindu mythology, not science, and it's used mostly
by
New Age kooks who don't know any more about cosmology than YOU do.
No, that came from Carl Sagan on "Cosmos."
And he got it from Lemaitre.
But Sagan got the idea popular.
Sagan was a great popularizer. As with all analogies, one must be
cautious
in taking them too far. Frankly I think Sagan sometimes went a little too
far, though I admit I couldn't do half the job he could.
I could watch the tapes of his show over and over.
I would suggest that you move beyond a science popularizer and actually read
some science. You seem woefully ignorant of certain basic theories.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:57:51 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
<big snip>
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
Classes on religion are not classes that promote religion, and you know that
very well. Comparative religious studies or historical studies inevitably
deal with religion, but in a scholarly fashion that does not attempt to
promote one over the other.
And no, I don't think atheism should be promoted either. What about my
views on this are you confused about? Have I not explained myself well
enough? Are you unsure as to what I mean. Here it is exactly:
1. Public schools should not promote any religion, faith or even lack of
faith.
2. Studying religions in a comparitive or historical fashion is not
promotion. For instance, to study the history of Medieval Europe will
obviously require some understanding of Christianity over the period, as
well as Islam. This does not mean that a course on the subject will promote
either Christianity or Islam.
Is there anything about this that you are not clear on?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not so quick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 02:14:45 PM |
|
|
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2q3pj.r4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:57:51 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
<big snip>
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion
ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
Classes on religion are not classes that promote religion, and you know
that
very well. Comparative religious studies or historical studies inevitably
deal with religion, but in a scholarly fashion that does not attempt to
promote one over the other.
And no, I don't think atheism should be promoted either. What about my
views on this are you confused about? Have I not explained myself well
enough? Are you unsure as to what I mean. Here it is exactly:
1. Public schools should not promote any religion, faith or even lack of
faith.
2. Studying religions in a comparitive or historical fashion is not
promotion. For instance, to study the history of Medieval Europe will
obviously require some understanding of Christianity over the period, as
well as Islam. This does not mean that a course on the subject will
promote
either Christianity or Islam.
Is there anything about this that you are not clear on?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
OT some, but Aaron, do you think that the history
books in the western world cover the "crusades"
and like periods sufficiently? Is there some where that
one can read about that time from the Islam perspective?
I really would like to understand Islam needs and beliefs.
Right now the radical Muslims seem to be quite dangerous
and incomprehensible but it bothers me a lot to see anyone
demonized.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 04:51:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:14:45 -0500, Not so quick wrote
(in message <CgaXb.40269$QJ3.3822@fed1read04>):
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2q3pj.r4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:57:51 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
<big snip>
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion
ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
Classes on religion are not classes that promote religion, and you know
that
very well. Comparative religious studies or historical studies inevitably
deal with religion, but in a scholarly fashion that does not attempt to
promote one over the other.
And no, I don't think atheism should be promoted either. What about my
views on this are you confused about? Have I not explained myself well
enough? Are you unsure as to what I mean. Here it is exactly:
1. Public schools should not promote any religion, faith or even lack of
faith.
2. Studying religions in a comparitive or historical fashion is not
promotion. For instance, to study the history of Medieval Europe will
obviously require some understanding of Christianity over the period, as
well as Islam. This does not mean that a course on the subject will
promote
either Christianity or Islam.
Is there anything about this that you are not clear on?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
OT some, but Aaron, do you think that the history
books in the western world cover the "crusades"
and like periods sufficiently?
Depends. Most high-school level history books tend to do the simplistic
religious level stuff. Serious history books focus on the underlying causes,
which are pretty much the same as for any other war: ideological, economic,
and demographic. The demographic causes for the first three Crusades are
particularly clear.
Is there some where that
one can read about that time from the Islam perspective?
Sure there are. Get hold of high-school level history books written in Arab
countries for Arabs. They have the same simplistic religious stuff that Xian
countries do. Serious historians in Muslim counties also focus on the
reality: ideology, economics, and demographics.
I really would like to understand Islam needs and beliefs.
Get hold of _serious_ history books.
Right now the radical Muslims seem to be quite dangerous
and incomprehensible
Radical Muslims have _always_ been dangerous and incomprehensible, not least
to other Muslims. You might want to look up the origins of the word
'Assassin'. Note who the prime targets had been.
Radical Xians are at least as dangerous and incomprehensible, not least to
other Xians. Look up Calvin, Knox, Cromwell, Robertson...
but it bothers me a lot to see anyone
demonized.
Only when they don't deserve it.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JaM" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
13 Feb 2004 06:32:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "Not so quick"
<goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ol5j.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:04:48 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2o7qb.jk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:57:53 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ng4v.u8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:58:19 +0000 (UTC),
Not so quick <goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2l228.1i4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:41:21 +0000 (UTC),
Mark Earnest <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote, among other things...
Most likely (unless you are insane) your top priority is the
survival
of mankind. Think about it - there is nothing you would not
sacrafice in your life if it would keep all mankind from being
extinguished.
Right. But what about the way a colony of ants defends the
queen?
Is there some head of mankind, some God that we would defend?
If aliens landed and threatened to wipe out humanity, I'd gladly
defend
my
fellow humans. Heck, if some aliens came down and threatened to
kill
all
dogs, I'd be in on their defense as well. But if aliens came
down
and
threatened to kill God, I'd tell them "Go ahead, and let me know
where
you
found him."
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
What would 'killing God' mean? That the aliens would
burn down churches, burn Bibles, pass laws that God
couldn't be talked about...
No, it would mean finding this being and wiping him out. As an
atheist, I
would think the whole venture idiotic, but if an advanced
civilization
wanted to wipe out a fictitious Hebrew deity, then all the power to
them.
As to burning down churches, burning bibles, passing laws that
made-up
gods
couldn't be talked about, why would I want that?
Oh I get it. You've got a persecution complex. You think because
some
folks don't want religion shoved down their children's throats in
schools,
they're trying to ban your particular deity. I see.
I know of no one trying to ban the mention of your deity. I know of
a
few
school boards here and there down in the States who are finally
beginning
to
understand that public schools are not the place for Baptist pastors
to
pal
around with the kiddies during school hours.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
To me, honestly as I can be right now, my internal experience
with an intelligence and greater goodness and more human being
is very important. Sometimes I think Eric Berne's idea of ego
states is close to reality. I'm not sure whether the child ego
state's
intelligence has been oppressed and is trying to come out or
whether there is an instinct that an instinct greater than my
consciousness can rule me if I let it. But I do object to people
having
tried to control me.
Maybe prayer should be banned in classes but do you really think
that a child giving a valedictorian speech should be banned from
mentioning their religion?
Here's where we get into that wonderful grey area between "mentioning"
and
"promoting".
A child can get in trouble for say "God."
I'm not aware of children getting in trouble for using the word "God".
That's not right. And should tax money for schools only go to the
places that don't want religion taught,
The Constitution fo the United States effectively severs church and
state.
Government cannot be used to push any religion.
or should parents have the
choice of how their education dollars are spent?
Of course parents have a right, providing they don't violate the
Constitution in doing so.
Are you saying
that religious people's tax dollars should be taken from them to
be spent on an education that goes against their beliefs?
I'm saying that tax dollars spent on education should not be used to
support
anyone's beliefs.
Tell you what. If you're willing to allow Wiccans to promote their
beliefs
in public schools, and Shintoists and Buddhists, and if you'll accept
your
child be forced to listen to someone say "there is no god of any kind",
then
I'll be perfectly happy to allow Yahweh to be promoted.
Or we can all agree that public schools are not the place to promote
any
religion. It's up to you. Do you want Satanism promoted in the
classroom,
or not?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
You make a good point but I was saying the parochial schools
(if that includes all religions) should get federal money if that is
where parents choose to send there kids, not that public schools
should be forced to allow religious speech.
Frankly, I think that any school that promotes any specific religion ought
not get a nickel of public funds.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Does that go for any classes on religion, in general, taught
as true? I just can't see how theists should be forced to pay
for atheistic education.
There's no such thing.
Or, maybe you could give an example?
Regards, JaM
---------
Sometimes wishfull thinking cloud ones mind
#2105
.
|
|
|
|
