| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2004 09:44:51 PM |
| Object: |
Interview with a creationist |
From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Bahr was heartened recently when the Grantsburg School Board in
northwestern Wisconsin voted to permit theories of origin other than
evolution to be taught in its science curriculum. That's the kind of
thinking he encouraged for 17 years as the Creation Science Society of
Milwaukee's president. His theme was from Genesis: "In the beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth." The non-profit society was
founded in 1975 to spread the view that scientific facts agree better
with a six-day biblical version of the creation of an Earth that is
about 6,000 years old than with the evolutionary view of an Earth that
is more than 4 billion years old. It does not have resources to lobby
or to fund local movements. It gives educational presentations at
monthly gatherings open to the public in meeting rooms at churches,
banks and public libraries. It runs seminars, science workshops and
field trips. It has book booths at Christian events. Bahr stepped down
as president earlier this year. He taught biology and other science
classes at Milwaukee Lutheran High School for 36 years, retiring in
1996. He spoke with Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Heinen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec04/282736.asp
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
10 Dec 2004 08:14:40 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:jo7ir0h3jc4ifnmtvfgm5eer990opg1pki@4ax.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Bahr was heartened recently when the Grantsburg School Board in
northwestern Wisconsin voted to permit theories of origin other than
evolution to be taught in its science curriculum. That's the kind of
thinking he encouraged for 17 years as the Creation Science Society of
Milwaukee's president. His theme was from Genesis: "In the beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth." The non-profit society was
founded in 1975 to spread the view that scientific facts agree better
with a six-day biblical version of the creation of an Earth that is
about 6,000 years old than with the evolutionary view of an Earth that
is more than 4 billion years old. It does not have resources to lobby
or to fund local movements. It gives educational presentations at
monthly gatherings open to the public in meeting rooms at churches,
banks and public libraries. It runs seminars, science workshops and
field trips. It has book booths at Christian events. Bahr stepped down
as president earlier this year. He taught biology and other science
classes at Milwaukee Lutheran High School for 36 years, retiring in
1996. He spoke with Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Heinen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec04/282736.asp
J. Spaceman
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
10 Dec 2004 10:27:54 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:jo7ir0h3jc4ifnmtvfgm5eer990opg1pki@4ax.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Bahr was heartened recently when the Grantsburg School Board in
northwestern Wisconsin voted to permit theories of origin other than
evolution to be taught in its science curriculum. That's the kind of
thinking he encouraged for 17 years as the Creation Science Society of
Milwaukee's president. His theme was from Genesis: "In the beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth." The non-profit society was
founded in 1975 to spread the view that scientific facts agree better
with a six-day biblical version of the creation of an Earth that is
about 6,000 years old than with the evolutionary view of an Earth that
is more than 4 billion years old. It does not have resources to lobby
or to fund local movements. It gives educational presentations at
monthly gatherings open to the public in meeting rooms at churches,
banks and public libraries. It runs seminars, science workshops and
field trips. It has book booths at Christian events. Bahr stepped down
as president earlier this year. He taught biology and other science
classes at Milwaukee Lutheran High School for 36 years, retiring in
1996. He spoke with Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Heinen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec04/282736.asp
J. Spaceman
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds
limitations of knowledge.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
11 Dec 2004 05:45:18 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
--
Zionism is warmed over Deuteronomy for atheists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3305
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
11 Dec 2004 01:21:35 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:okBud.105664$8G4.98923@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that
be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that
I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
13 Dec 2004 05:21:06 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:okBud.105664$8G4.98923@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that
be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that
I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
And then some day someone just might challenge you to define
complicated. And no rational person will accept that what is beyond
your understanding is complicated.
The entire thrust of science has been simplification. Science has
NEVER failed in that. NOTHING has ever increased complication since
science was invented.
--
God may have revealed his plan for the Middle East.
But what kind of god would reveal it to George Bush?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3311
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
13 Dec 2004 04:51:45 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Ike wrote:
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
And then some day someone just might challenge you to define
complicated. And no rational person will accept that what is beyond
your understanding is complicated.
The entire thrust of science has been simplification. Science has
NEVER failed in that. NOTHING has ever increased complication since
science was invented.
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it the right way, did not become still more complicated." --
Paul Alderson
[1971 Salisbury]"discoveries during the past 20 years that have
indicated to us how really complex living systems are. We have known for
a long time that man's body is an intricate and complex machine. Now we
know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It
includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex
machine itself."
Cite in
1971 Salisbury's Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
18 Dec 2004 02:09:11 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Ike wrote:
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
And then some day someone just might challenge you to define
complicated. And no rational person will accept that what is beyond
your understanding is complicated.
The entire thrust of science has been simplification. Science has
NEVER failed in that. NOTHING has ever increased complication since
science was invented.
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it the right way, did not become still more complicated." --
Paul Alderson
Obviously his right way is the wrong way, whomever he is.
[1971 Salisbury]"discoveries during the past 20 years that have
indicated to us how really complex living systems are. We have known for
a long time that man's body is an intricate and complex machine. Now we
know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It
includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex
machine itself."
Cite in
1971 Salisbury's Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com
Ignorance of function does not equate to complication of function.
Not being able to understand any aspect of a cell's function is like
god, beyond understanding.
--
If anyone else were doing what America is doing in
Iraq, America would call it atrocities.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3300
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
15 Dec 2004 08:36:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:21:06 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
Ike wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:okBud.105664$8G4.98923@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that
be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that
I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
We don't even know if black holes exist so there is no way to test what they
would be like if they did exist.
And then some day someone just might challenge you to define
complicated. And no rational person will accept that what is beyond
your understanding is complicated.
The entire thrust of science has been simplification. Science has
NEVER failed in that. NOTHING has ever increased complication since
science was invented.
--
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
16 Dec 2004 04:43:48 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:21:06 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
Ike wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:okBud.105664$8G4.98923@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that
be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary.
I certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it.
On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you
that
I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has
origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less
you know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens
inside a Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
We don't even know if black holes exist so there is no way to test what
they would be like if they did exist.
Wrong. Black holes make testable claims that have been tested.
Black holes do exist.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
18 Dec 2004 02:13:20 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:21:06 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
Ike wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:okBud.105664$8G4.98923@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nqiud.6800$yr1.3727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't get it. If the Universe is so complicated, then why could that
be
evidence of a Creator. I would take that as evidence to the contrary. I
certainly wouldn't assume, based on the complexity that's beyond my
comprehension, feel qualified to deduce that a living Being made it. On
the
contrary, since I can't understand it completely, I won't tell you that
I
know enough about it to postulate its origins, if indeed it has origins.
Unfortunately, the majority of the human race are not willing to accept
mankinds limitations of knowledge.
And the dumber they are the less likely to accept it. Some one line
about how easy it is to get a wise man to doubt his wisdom as compared
to the fool who has no doubts.
The complexity arguement fails by simpler methods. Fifty years ago
the universe was _perceived_ as more complex than it is today. 100
years even more complex. A hundred years ago there were elementary
observations which were not just unexplained but which were impossible
within the limits of what was known such as spectral lines without
quantum mechanics. These days we have to push the limits of
observation to find things we can't explain and we are not always
certain of the observation. For DNA most things are not yet explained
but so far not the least hint of anything unexplainable. But 50- years
ago, speculation only on what DNA was for.
I think it is still extremely complicated and the more you know the less you
know. For example, you will theoretically never know what happens inside a
Black Hole, and I could go on and on.
You can go "on and on" till heaven boils over but all you can say is
THIS YEAR this very small aspect is complicated. Next year you will
only be able to say an even small aspect is complicated.
We don't even know if black holes exist so there is no way to test what they
would be like if they did exist.
There are things which have been observed which have the
characteristics predicted for black holes. The predictions were made
before the observations. In the past that has been a very good
indication.
And then some day someone just might challenge you to define
complicated. And no rational person will accept that what is beyond
your understanding is complicated.
The entire thrust of science has been simplification. Science has
NEVER failed in that. NOTHING has ever increased complication since
science was invented.
--
Visa has made a Mossad spy and convicted identity
thief an executive officer. Do you feel safer now?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3308
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
09 Dec 2004 10:54:03 PM |
|
|
And if you enjoyed that story you might also enjoy
the Creationist nameless and Queen of the Ignorant the
next two books in the series.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon \You Dirty Mother\ Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: Interview with a creationist |
10 Dec 2004 02:15:32 AM |
|
|
in the interests of rationalism, i have rewritten the previous posting to
reflect reality.
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> shovelled this load of
*****:
From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------
Ken "that nut on the corner" Bahr was standing in the rain preaching to a
wall one day when the school principal in Grantsburg, WI took pity on him
and allowed him to stand inside the school until the orderlies came to pick
him up. At that time, Ken seized the opportunity to share his psychoses with
the young impressionable lack of minds that serve as an excuse to tax
everybody's homes, and started ranting wildly about a fairy with a beard
who, 6,000 years ago to the day, took a ***** and the universe came out of
his *****. He picked up a long discredited pile of fiction entitled "The
Bible" and began reading from 'Chapter 1: Genesis', which makes the
following unsubstantiated claim: "In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth."
Ken had started his own tax-exempt organization in his basement which
consisted of himself and his two cats. His organization, "The Big Giant Army
of Baby Jesus, The Christ", was founded in during one of Ken's manic phases
in 1975, for the purpose of deluding everybody into agreeing with him that
science is satan's work, and also to exterminate everybody who doesn't
agree. Ken's organization has no money to lobby, because Ken keeps blowing
his SSI cheques on liquor as soon as he cashes them.
Ken takes it upon himself to rant and rave in churches, banks, and public
libraries, he gives seminars to his cats in the basment about jesus, and
occasionally he takes "field trips" down to the local brewery for a keg.
This year, Ken saw a mouse and stepped down as president of his basement to
turn control over to his cat. He spent 36 years ranting and raving about
sex on a corner in front of the Milwaukee Lutheran High school until the
court issued a restraining order.
Get a load of the rest of this ***** at
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec04/282736.asp
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
