Unoriginal Bull.......

[Patrick1000]

I was watching these old Walter Cronkite clips in which he was featured reporting on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space program events.

My God!!!! for some reason, listening to those Apollo 8 nitwits, astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell read from the Bible, Genesis no less, as they rolled their way around the moon, Christmas 1968, bothered me quite a bit. The nerve of these clowns and the twits that put 'em up to it.

"Take that you commies!", their message was so loud and clear, "in case you hadn't noticed, God wears an Uncle Sam red white and blue top hat".

Anyone else feel like me, bothered by this absolute jive?, astronauts employing Biblical readings from outer space to advance American political/religious views.

Hey what about all that business, you know, the separation of church from space.......

[Brainache]

Doesn't bother me. The whole race to the moon was a giant piece of political propaganda, doesn't surprise me that they would throw some religion in there as well.

Hell, one of the first things Buzz Aldrin did when he got to the moon was to celebrate Holy Communion. Wine (well grape juice) and crackers in the Lunar Module!

Talk about anachronisms...

[Patrick1000]

Doesn't bother me. The whole race to the moon was a giant piece of political propaganda, doesn't surprise me that they would throw some religion in there as well.

Hell, one of the first things Buzz Aldrin did when he got to the moon was to celebrate Holy Communion. Wine (well grape juice) and crackers in the Lunar Module!

Talk about anachronisms...

Sure glad Aldrin didn't share that one with us. Had he, I think I would have vomited...

[slingblade]

I was watching these old Walter Cronkite clips in which he was featured reporting on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space program events.

My God!!!! for some reason, listening to those Apollo 8 nitwits, astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell read from the Bible, Genesis no less, as they rolled their way around the moon, Christmas 1968, bothered me quite a bit. The nerve of these clowns and the twits that put 'em up to it.

"Take that you commies!", their message was so loud and clear, "in case you hadn't noticed, God wears an Uncle Sam red white and blue top hat".

Anyone else feel like me, bothered by this absolute jive?, astronauts employing Biblical readings from outer space to advance American political/religious views.

Hey what about all that business, you know, the separation of church from space.......

Can't say I've ever given it a second's thought, until you brought it up.

Now that you have, it doesn't have any power to bother me, as it happened so long ago, and there's **** all I could do about it now.

Within a few more moments, I will have forgotten entirely about it.

[Robrob]

Hey what about all that business, you know, the separation of church from space.......

Dude, it was nearly a half century ago. Who cares?

[Kid Eager]

Dude, it was nearly a half century ago. Who cares?

In Space, no one can hear you preach.....

[autumn1971]

I just finished reading Rocket Men, an account of the Apollo 11 mission, and it was mentioned that a NASA employee was told that Nixon wanted the plaque left on the Moon to read "We came in peace, under God, for all Mankind". The NASA guy remembered telling the other guy that the Genesis reading had already stirred up resentment. He finally decided that the "under God" request could simply be ignored amid all the other stuff going on, and nobody would notice.

[Pulvinar]

I just finished reading Rocket Men, an account of the Apollo 11 mission, and it was mentioned that a NASA employee was told that Nixon wanted the plaque left on the Moon to read "We came in peace, under God, for all Mankind". The NASA guy remembered telling the other guy that the Genesis reading had already stirred up resentment. He finally decided that the "under God" request could simply be ignored amid all the other stuff going on, and nobody would notice.

Interesting-- there's an account of it in Media, NASA, and America's quest for the moon too, which can be read by googling:

nasa moon "under god"

It's the first hit.

[Patrick1000]

Dude, it was nearly a half century ago. Who cares?

Yeah, guess I shouldn't let it get to me.......

[autumn1971]

Yeah, guess I shouldn't let it get to me.......

Well, at this point, yes; it is a silly thing to let get to you. But as I said, people at the time (very few of them probably, but still,) were upset at what amounted to a very pricey government sponsored sermon.

As for Aldrin taking communion on the Moon, I have absolutely no problem with that, as it was during a few minutes when he wasn't doing anything anyway, and the materials were part of his personal allowance of things. He also didn't broadcast or in any way publicise it. While it took place the only thing anyone on Earth could hear was Armstrong running a couple of checklists.

[Patrick1000]

Well, at this point, yes; it is a silly thing to let get to you. But as I said, people at the time (very few of them probably, but still,) were upset at what amounted to a very pricey government sponsored sermon.

As for Aldrin taking communion on the Moon, I have absolutely no problem with that, as it was during a few minutes when he wasn't doing anything anyway, and the materials were part of his personal allowance of things. He also didn't broadcast or in any way publicise it. While it took place the only thing anyone on Earth could hear was Armstrong running a couple of checklists.

Two different thinks altogether......

What Aldrin does seems fine to me. It is personal. The Jim Lovell thing is absolutely ridiculous. Can't believe they got away with it really.

They play that bull over and over and over now too, show it/play the nauseating audio on television and what not all of the time. It really is not past tense, though it has lost its screw you Ruskies slant.

[autumn1971]

Interesting-- there's an account of it in Media, NASA, and America's quest for the moon too, which can be read by googling:

nasa moon "under god"

It's the first hit.

In Rocket Men, there is an excerpt from an interview with Jack Kinzler, the NASA tech services department director, who remembers it as a phone call from White House aide Peter Flanigan, during which Julien Scheer, Public Affairs asst. administrator, first objected to, then agreed to the change. It doesn't mention that the plaque was already made. The end of the excerpted portion of the interview is, "It occurred to me that in the rush of events, no one would remember. That worked out."

The interview took place in 1998, so I don't know if it is a more reliable source than the one you cite.

Also, it turns out that the hubbub over the Christmas reading wasn't the objection to the plaque, but rather to Aldrin's plan to broadcast his communion service. He was ordered not to have his mic open during it, and instead Armstrong broadcast his initial descriptions of the Lunar surface while Aldrin ate a cracker.

[MG1962]

Two different thinks altogether......

What Aldrin does seems fine to me. It is personal. The Jim Lovell thing is absolutely ridiculous. Can't believe they got away with it really.

They play that bull over and over and over now too, show it/play the nauseating audio on television and what not all of the time. It really is not past tense, though it has lost its screw you Ruskies slant.

You wouldn't be prone to exaggeration now would you

[Pulvinar]

In Rocket Men, there is an excerpt from an interview with Jack Kinzler, the NASA tech services department director, who remembers it as a phone call from White House aide Peter Flanigan, during which Julien Scheer, Public Affairs asst. administrator, first objected to, then agreed to the change. It doesn't mention that the plaque was already made. The end of the excerpted portion of the interview is, "It occurred to me that in the rush of events, no one would remember. That worked out."

The interview took place in 1998, so I don't know if it is a more reliable source than the one you cite.

Also, it turns out that the hubbub over the Christmas reading wasn't the objection to the plaque, but rather to Aldrin's plan to broadcast his communion service. He was ordered not to have his mic open during it, and instead Armstrong broadcast his initial descriptions of the Lunar surface while Aldrin ate a cracker.

That makes sense. For yet another angle on this, see First Man by James Hansen, p. 487. Google:

"first man" "bible reading by borman"

The book claims that it was Madalyn O'Hair's suing NASA over the Apollo 8 Bible reading and threatening to expose Armstrong as an atheist as the reason Slayton urged Aldrin to not air his communion. Armstrong denied being an atheist to Cronkite, but dodged other religious questions (p. 33-35). Google:

"first man" "face the nation"

(I have this book)

[steve s]

They were pilots, not scientists, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised that they might be religious.

Steve S

[Patrick1000]

They were pilots, not scientists, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised that they might be religious.

Steve S

It was not sincere, it was political, phony "religion"......

[Patrick1000]

You wouldn't be prone to exaggeration now would you

How many times have you seen/heard the Genesis clip in your life....?

If you are not nauseated, fine......

[Patrick1000]

They were pilots, not scientists, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised that they might be religious.

Steve S

Another way to say it, they are NOT religious......Not in a Christian sense anyway.....

[MG1962]

How many times have you seen/heard the Genesis clip in your life....?

If you are not nauseated, fine......

Maybe 10 times in the 43 years since it happened. I have seen the Earth rise footage probably hundreds of times. Depends how often you watched Devo's Beautiful World, I guess

I've probably seen and read Sagan's 'blue dot' musing far more

[Sledge]

How many times have you seen/heard the Genesis clip in your life....?

If you are not nauseated, fine......I dislike Phil Collins as much as the next guy, but I think "nauseated" is a bit strong.

[Patrick1000]

I dislike Phil Collins as much as the next guy, but I think "nauseated" is a bit strong.

Peter Gabriel is the better of the two.....no question......

[Mojo]

I was watching these old Walter Cronkite clips in which he was featured reporting on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space program events.

My God!!!! for some reason, listening to those Apollo 8 nitwits, astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell read from the Bible, Genesis no less, as they rolled their way around the moon, Christmas 1968, bothered me quite a bit. The nerve of these clowns and the twits that put 'em up to it.


This is somewhat inconsistent with the position you have taken on evolution, which is that because the majority of Americans are Christian, fundamentalist Christian beliefs should be taken into account in arriving at a theory of evolution: Here in the United States, 75% of adults, so I have read, identify themselves as Christians. That is 175 million people, the vast majority of voters. In addition, there is a sizable minority of other theists; Jews, Muslims, that like Christians, belong to a faith characterized by the believers having a personal relationship with their God.

As such, the vast majority of Americans, with respect to their most fundamental views on who they are, would be classified as intelligent design advocates. To be a Christian is to view this world and oneself as a creation, AN INTENTIONAL CREATION. Were I a Christian, I would view myself as being made by God, AND! most importantly, God made me with a purpose. This was no whim, this world, and the people in it. This is what religion in our occidental tradition is all about.

Now, you have 175 million people in the US, self identified as intelligent design advocates. One then introduces "evolution", undirected, unintentional, purposeless, wholly natural evolution. Cognitive dissonance anyone? A bit of an understatement my friends, wouldn't you say???????........


If the belief of the majority of Americans is important enough to be cited as a reason to challenge the current theory of evolution, why shouldn't it have been taken into account when deciding something as comparatively trivial as whether some words should be read out on a religious holiday during a spaceflight?

[Patrick1000]

This is somewhat inconsistent with the position you have taken on evolution, which is that because the majority of Americans are Christian, fundamentalist Christian beliefs should be taken into account in arriving at a theory of evolution:


If the belief of the majority of Americans is important enough to be cited as a reason to challenge the current theory of evolution, why shouldn't it have been taken into account when deciding something as comparatively trivial as whether some words should be read out on a religious holiday during a spaceflight?

Not my position at all.....One takes facts into account. Jesus is not a fact. Jesus is a myth, an interesting one, but a myth all the same. Jesus did not evolve. Someone made up a story about a person who was, embellished it and turned it into a religion. Christianity is jive. I don't buy that nonsense.

My point here is that these 3 cislunar clowns have no right to do this. Spew this idiotic bull from outer space. If I was 31 instead of 11 when eight went 'round the moon, I would have dope slapped the three stooges, Anders, Borman and Lovell, all the way to mars.....

[Mojo]

My point here is that these 3 cislunar clowns have no right to do this. Spew this idiotic bull from outer space.


If you think "this idiotic bull" has a place in discussion of evolutionary theory because the majority of Americans believe it, why would the same reasoning not apply to a decision about words read out during an American space mission?

[Patrick1000]

If you think "this idiotic bull" has a place in discussion of evolutionary theory because the majority of Americans believe it, why would the same reasoning not apply to a decision about words read out during an American space mission?

It is relevant, the idiotic bull, but only in the context of teaching evolution in public school classrooms....

If you say evolution is mindless, you cannot teach it in school unless you do so by actually pointing out, emphasizing that the theory opposes Christianity , and opposes Christianity very directly.

Evolution and Christianity are connected/related in that they are mutually exclusive. Because religious teaching is not allowed in school, not supposed to be anyhoo, evolution cannot be taught there, at least it should not be, unless this point/problem is addressed very directly.

[Twiler]

It is relevant, the idiotic bull, but only in the context of teaching evolution in public school classrooms....

If you say evolution is mindless, you cannot teach it in school unless you do so by actually pointing out, emphasizing that the theory opposes Christianity , and opposes Christianity very directly.

Evolution and Christianity are connected/related in that they are mutually exclusive. Because religious teaching is not allowed in school, not supposed to be anyhoo, evolution cannot be taught there, at least it should not be, unless this point/problem is addressed very directly.

I think you can make them compatible with enough reinterpretation; The issue is not so much the compatibility of the theory of evolution with christianity, so much as the way that the theory provides an alternative to intelligent design, which makes the 'creation requires a creator' argument invalid.

[Mojo]

It is relevant, the idiotic bull, but only in the context of teaching evolution in public school classrooms....

If you say evolution is mindless, you cannot teach it in school unless you do so by actually pointing out, emphasizing that the theory opposes Christianity , and opposes Christianity very directly.


Nonsense. You can teach evolution without even mentioning Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter).

The religious beliefs people hold are not relevant to the correctness of a scientific theory, even if those beliefs are hald by a majority of the population. However, they might well be very relevant to whether it is appropriate to read out Biblical passages in the context of a mission in a national space programme.

[Penemue]

"Take that you commies!", their message was so loud and clear, "in case you hadn't noticed, God wears an Uncle Sam red white and blue top hat".


Actually, I found that kind of amusing. It gave me a visual image on par with a Gary Larson cartoon.

[TheRedWorm]

I was watching these old Walter Cronkite clips in which he was featured reporting on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space program events.

My God!!!! for some reason, listening to those Apollo 8 nitwits, astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell read from the Bible, Genesis no less, as they rolled their way around the moon, Christmas 1968, bothered me quite a bit. The nerve of these clowns and the twits that put 'em up to it.

"Take that you commies!", their message was so loud and clear, "in case you hadn't noticed, God wears an Uncle Sam red white and blue top hat".

Anyone else feel like me, bothered by this absolute jive?, astronauts employing Biblical readings from outer space to advance American political/religious views.

Hey what about all that business, you know, the separation of church from space.......


I thought that you thought the space program was a hoax?

[tsig]

It is relevant, the idiotic bull, but only in the context of teaching evolution in public school classrooms....

If you say evolution is mindless, you cannot teach it in school unless you do so by actually pointing out, emphasizing that the theory opposes Christianity , and opposes Christianity very directly.

Evolution and Christianity are connected/related in that they are mutually exclusive. Because religious teaching is not allowed in school, not supposed to be anyhoo, evolution cannot be taught there, at least it should not be, unless this point/problem is addressed very directly.

So much the worse for Christianity then.

[MG1962]

Nonsense. You can teach evolution without even mentioning Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter).

The religious beliefs people hold are not relevant to the correctness of a scientific theory, even if those beliefs are hald by a majority of the population. However, they might well be very relevant to whether it is appropriate to read out Biblical passages in the context of a mission in a national space programme.

And Patrick is clearly miss representing this point in his faux rage.

1968 had been a rough year for Americans. The death of King and Kennedy the grind of the Vietnam war. The growing Hippy movement was widening the generation gap.

The 1968 Christmas message was meant as inspiration, no less than Sagan's 'Blue dot' 25 years latter We had never seen our planet so small so far away, seemingly so fragile

They chose the best known western creation myth to put voice to that inspiration. We can see their real intent in reading the passage in the final line of the broadcast

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas*– and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.

[Akhenaten]

They chose the best known western creation myth to put voice to that inspiration. We can see their real intent in reading the passage in the final line of the broadcast

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas*– and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.





And I for one find that to have been a noble intent. I'm as moved by that benediction now as I was at the time, despite my lack of belief.

[Patrick1000]

I think you can make them compatible with enough reinterpretation; The issue is not so much the compatibility of the theory of evolution with christianity, so much as the way that the theory provides an alternative to intelligent design, which makes the 'creation requires a creator' argument invalid.

Not fair to reinterpret Christianity, its tenets are its tenets...

If you change it for this reason, that would be "cheating"....

[Patrick1000]

Nonsense. You can teach evolution without even mentioning Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter).

The religious beliefs people hold are not relevant to the correctness of a scientific theory, even if those beliefs are hald by a majority of the population. However, they might well be very relevant to whether it is appropriate to read out Biblical passages in the context of a mission in a national space programme.

Sure you can teach it that way, not mentioning the conflict with Christianity, but then such teaching would not be fair...

How would you like it if things were flipped around, that on the weekend your child went to Sunday school where he/she learned Darwinism and then Monday through Friday in high school "biology" the teacher taught that the process of our creation, reptile to JRandi poster, was actually scripted in a sense, intentional. The "biology teacher" taught the children that we all were made by way of a process of divinely "directed mutation" in the image and likeness of God. Indeed, we were made with great intention, not to mention attention, love and purpose.

Same thing goes on with teaching biology nowadays, only the inverse. At Sunday school the children get the image and likeness drill. Monday through Friday, the children get the no intention/mindless/purposeless drill.

You cannot teach children that they were made without intention and say that is a statement having nothing at all to do with most of their parents' religious beliefs. It has a great deal to do with their parents' beliefs, and actually contradicts those beliefs, and contradicts them very directly.

It is a simple point really, not one that should be in dispute.....

[Patrick1000]

Actually, I found that kind of amusing. It gave me a visual image on par with a Gary Larson cartoon.

It is funny Penemue, the comic aspect/feature is not lost on me....

So the Godless commies popped old Yuri G. in a can and rolled him 'round the big blue one a few times, a bit embarrassing, no question 'bout that...... BUT ALAS!!!!!! there is hope to be sure. We stuffed no less than 3 dudes in a bigger tin can and rolled 'em 'round the old grey man a bunch of times. Now THAT! took some doing. And just to really sock it to you Ruskies, stick it in your greasy Piroshki gobbling faces, we'll read from this book that kinda' proves your red rumps are cooked, 'cuz it's GOD'S BOOK see, and he likes US not you. SO THERE !!!!

[Brainache]

Not fair to reinterpret Christianity, its tenets are its tenets...

If you change it for this reason, that would be "cheating"....

I think you'll find that the tenets of Christianity are what Christians say they are.

Most Christians don't have a problem with Evolution. Look at what the Catholics say:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

...Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

[Craig4]

Not a fan of the reading but wow... humanity went to the moon. Still a very impressive feat.

[Patrick1000]

I think you'll find that the tenets of Christianity are what Christians say they are.

Most Christians don't have a problem with Evolution. Look at what the Catholics say:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

It matters not necessarily what they say....

In their struggle to have it both ways, have both Darwinism and Christianity, the confusion and lack of understanding on the part of these people is betrayed in these silly position statements. They come across as understanding neither dogmatic system, and they indeed do not understand Christianity, nor Darwinism to boot. Not that this is not understandable or that these people are stupid. They are stuck in a bad spot ideologically.

[Twiler]

It matters not necessarily what they say....

In their struggle to have it both ways, have both Darwinism and Christianity, the confusion and lack of understanding on the part of these people is betrayed in these silly position statements. They come across as understanding neither dogmatic system, and they indeed do not understand Christianity, nor Darwinism to boot. Not that this is not understandable or that these people are stupid. They are stuck in a bad spot ideologically.

How do you define someone as a christian then?

[Ichneumonwasp]

It matters not necessarily what they say....

In their struggle to have it both ways, have both Darwinism and Christianity, the confusion and lack of understanding on the part of these people is betrayed in these silly position statements. They come across as understanding neither dogmatic system, and they indeed do not understand Christianity, nor Darwinism to boot. Not that this is not understandable or that these people are stupid. They are stuck in a bad spot ideologically.


What is dogmatic about Darwin't theory?


Belief in magic does not invalidate Darwin's theory; it simply isn't necessary.

[MontagK505]

And I for one find that to have been a noble intent. I'm as moved by that benediction now as I was at the time, despite my lack of belief.

I agree with you. That was my reaction as well. If there was some reason to believe that this was orchestrated by Nixon or NASA I would feel differently.

Keep in mind that these three guys were 250,000 miles from earth with only one engine to get them home. If it makes them feel better to read from an ancient book of fables it's fine with me.

[Patrick1000]

How do you define someone as a christian then?

An individual who believes Christ was the son of God.....This Christ, this anointed one, "came to the earth" to live as a man and set an example for us all. In his dying, in his crucifixion, our faults are/were so atoned. If one makes every effort to live a life of love and kindness, such a life shall be rewarded. Upon the death of a genuine Christian who manages to successfully live a life characterized by more caring and less self interest, that individual shall dwell in an eternally blissful state with the very same Christ that set the example to begin with.

The astronauts were anything but boys of the "more caring and less self interest school". They were gunners, figuratively and literally.

They actually "USED"(as in abused) God's word in their bogus public opinion oriented manipulative Bible reading.

Ughhhh, pass the compazine.........

[RossFW]

To the best of my knowledge, none of the Appollo 8 crew were particularly religious.

It was just a seemingly profound passage to read, being the first Humans in Orbit around the Moon, looking back on the Earth during the Christmas season.

Would it have been offensive to quote Dante or Homer?


I'm a 6.99 Athiest and Anti-theist, that doesn't mean literature can't set a meaningful mood during a profound event.

[Twiler]

An individual who believes Christ was the son of God.....This Christ, this anointed one, "came to the earth" to live as a man and set an example for us all. In his dying, in his crucifixion, our faults are/were so atoned. If one makes every effort to live a life of love and kindness, such a life shall be rewarded. Upon the death of a genuine Christian who manages to successfully live a life characterized by more caring and less self interest, that individual shall dwell in an eternally blissful state with the very same Christ that set the example to begin with.

The astronauts were anything but boys of the "more caring and less self interest school". They were gunners, figuratively and literally.

They actually "USED"(as in abused) God's word in their bogus public opinion oriented manipulative Bible reading.

Ughhhh, pass the compazine.........

So, why is the theory of evolution incompatible with christianity? None of the things you have said exclude it.

[Mojo]

What is dogmatic about Darwin't theory?


Patrick is trying to create a false equivalence between a scientific theory and a creation myth to justify his claim that teaching evolution without saying it is directed is teaching religion.

[Captain_Swoop]

If it was all a hoax anyway why does it matter?

[Patrick1000]

If it was all a hoax anyway why does it matter?

Has nothing to do with whether the Apollo 8 Mission was "real" or not. The game played was that of religious theater.

Whether the cislunar nitwits did their readings from a Cocoa Beach whore house, or actually from perilunar space is utterly irrelevant. The aim was to send the Ruskies a message, not to mention and even more importantly, send the American people a message as well, "We will win this thing, 'cuz even though ya' can't see 'em, God's got stars and stripes on his undies".

[Mojo]

Has nothing to do with whether the Apollo 8 Mission was "real" or not. The game played was that of religious theater.

Whether the cislunar nitwits did their readings from a Cocoa Beach whore house, or actually from perilunar space is utterly irrelevant. The aim was to send the Ruskies a message, not to mention and even more importantly, send the American people a message as well, "We will win this thing, 'cuz even though ya' can't see 'em, God's got stars and stripes on his undies".


Why is it unreasonable to take into consideration the religious belief of the majority of the American public in this instance, if it is essential to do so when teaching evolution?

[Patrick1000]

Why is it unreasonable to take into consideration the religious belief of the majority of the American public in this instance, if it is essential to do so when teaching evolution?

It is most decidedly NOT essential to do so when teaching evolution...

The fostering of religious beliefs of any sort is out of place in outer space, and equally out of place, in our schools. If one does want to teach evolution in public school, grades 1-12, its religious implications must be acknowledged up front for this reason. If they are so acknowledged up front, such a recognition counters any charge that any one view is being fostered.

That is probably the best we can do as "evolution" should be taught, probably starting late middle school, or certainly by early high school.

If the astronauts had read a bit from Darwin's celebrated "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", then I would personally have had no objection to their reading from the Bible as well.

Matter of fact, that last little hypothetical there, reading Darwin from outer space, puts it in perspective does it not?

[Mojo]

It's that false equivalence again, isn't it?

[Complexity]

If the astronauts had read a bit from Darwin's celebrated "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", then I would personally have had no objection to their reading from the Bible as well.


Nonsense.

The bibble and Darwin's works are not comparable.

Darwin was a scientist doing a damned fine job at trying to understand reality.

The bibble is filled with occasionally euphonious superstitious nonsense that aims at controlling rubes and taking their money.

Darwin rocks.

The bible sucks.

[Captain_Swoop]

Has nothing to do with whether the Apollo 8 Mission was "real" or not. The game played was that of religious theater.

Whether the cislunar nitwits did their readings from a Cocoa Beach whore house, or actually from perilunar space is utterly irrelevant. The aim was to send the Ruskies a message, not to mention and even more importantly, send the American people a message as well, "We will win this thing, 'cuz even though ya' can't see 'em, God's got stars and stripes on his undies".

Apollo was all about sending a message to the Soviets and the American People. You do know that don't you?

[kerikiwi]

Apollo was all about sending a message to the Soviets and the American People. You do know that don't you?

A couple of postcards would have been a lot cheaper.

[Patrick1000]

It's that false equivalence again, isn't it?

Not sure what you mean by that....Go ahead and elaborate if you could/would, perhaps I'll wind up agreeing with you. Sounds interesting....

[Patrick1000]

Nonsense.

The bibble and Darwin's works are not comparable.

Darwin was a scientist doing a damned fine job at trying to understand reality.

The bibble is filled with occasionally euphonious superstitious nonsense that aims at controlling rubes and taking their money.

Darwin rocks.

The bible sucks.

My point EXACTLY!!!!!!!

So what in all get out, not to mention in the whole UNIVERSE, are the cislunar nitwits reading this BULL that totally SUCKS!!!!?????!!!!!?????

Could not agree with you more Complexity and it is indeed the entire point of this thread, distilled right down in your own very words. BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

[Patrick1000]

Nonsense.

The bibble and Darwin's works are not comparable.

Darwin was a scientist doing a damned fine job at trying to understand reality.

The bibble is filled with occasionally euphonious superstitious nonsense that aims at controlling rubes and taking their money.

Darwin rocks.

The bible sucks.

My point about reading Darwin was/is satire, get it?

[I Ratant]

And Patrick is clearly miss representing this point in his faux rage.

1968 had been a rough year for Americans. ..
.
That was about the time I walked out of church to never return.
ISTR hearing some religious stuff from space.. din't bother me then.
Wouldn't bother me now.

[Patrick1000]

Apollo was all about sending a message to the Soviets and the American People. You do know that don't you?

I get it, but the religious stuff is dumb, just flat out dumb...

[Patrick1000]

.
That was about the time I walked out of church to never return.
ISTR hearing some religious stuff from space.. din't bother me then.
Wouldn't bother me now.

Didn't bother me then either, I was eleven...

Does bother me now, how insincere!

It's embarrassing, glad I was only 11 or I would have puked.....

[I Ratant]

Tolerance, lad.
What anyone says doesn't break your arm or pick your pocket.
The armed services have been religious for 1000s of years, with chaplains blessing this cannon and that bomb.
The soldiers/sailors/marines are usually religious, and it carries over into civilian life.

[Mojo]

Not sure what you mean by that....Go ahead and elaborate if you could/would, perhaps I'll wind up agreeing with you.


Science is not a religion.

[Complexity]

My point about reading Darwin was/is satire, get it?


No, I didn't.

If that was satire, your errors and your satire are difficult to distinguish.

Play it straight, please.

[Captain_Swoop]

Why does it matter? You think it's all fake anyway?

Apollo was as to show the world that the 'American Way' was the best, that included the American brand of religion.

What is your real purpose behind this thread?

[Patrick1000]

Why does it matter? You think it's all fake anyway?

Apollo was as to show the world that the 'American Way' was the best, that included the American brand of religion.

What is your real purpose behind this thread?

If it is fake, it is an idiotic part of the script that I find personally offensive and embarrassing. If it is real, it is an idiotic part of the script that I find personally offensive and embarrassing.


Regardless of authenticity, I hate the forced association with these IDIOTS. Next time I go to the Smithsonian Aerospace Museum I think I'll wear a bag on my head so the foreign visitors looking at the exhibits won't identify me as one of the dingbats.

[X]

What is your real purpose behind this thread?


A good question.

This thread started out as a comment about the reading of Genesis on Apollo 8, then somehow diverged into a discussion of intelligent design/evolution (a topic already covered by Patrick1000 in the Science subforum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=221871), and is now claiming the moon landings are faked (a topic already covered by Patrick1000 in the Conspiracy Theory subforum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531)).


I would say it's a troll thread, but given the time Patrick1000 spends writing and setting up references in his posts, I'm not sure.

I'd report some posts as off-topic, were I certain what the topic was.

[Mojo]

This thread started out as a comment about the reading of Genesis on Apollo 8, then somehow diverged into a discussion of intelligent design/evolution (a topic already covered by Patrick1000 in the Science subforum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=221871)...


That was my fault - I asked about the apparent contradiction between his objection to biblical passages being read out during an American spaceflight and his position (expressed in the other thread) that the current theory of evolution needs to be changed out of repsect for the Christian beliefs of 75% of the American public, and he sidetracked himself.

[Complexity]

Do you expect us to believe you Complexity, that you actually thought I was doing anything but Lampooning the cislunar nincompoops?


I usually think that you are deadly serious.

[Piggy]

I was watching these old Walter Cronkite clips in which he was featured reporting on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space program events.

My God!!!! for some reason, listening to those Apollo 8 nitwits, astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell read from the Bible, Genesis no less, as they rolled their way around the moon, Christmas 1968, bothered me quite a bit. The nerve of these clowns and the twits that put 'em up to it.

"Take that you commies!", their message was so loud and clear, "in case you hadn't noticed, God wears an Uncle Sam red white and blue top hat".

Anyone else feel like me, bothered by this absolute jive?, astronauts employing Biblical readings from outer space to advance American political/religious views.

Hey what about all that business, you know, the separation of church from space.......

"Nitwits"?

I beg to differ.

And for my money, if a man gets into a tiny capsule and allows himself to be shot to the moon in it, he can read anything he damn well pleases.

And it seems to me that, under the circumstances, reading from his culture's creation myth was perfectly appropriate to the situation.

[TheGoldcountry]

If it is fake, it is an idiotic part of the script that I find personally offensive and embarrassing. If it is real, it is an idiotic part of the script that I find personally offensive and embarrassing.


Regardless of authenticity, I hate the forced association with these IDIOTS. Next time I go to the Smithsonian Aerospace Museum I think I'll wear a bag on my head so the foreign visitors looking at the exhibits won't identify me as one of the dingbats.

So, even if the reading was sincere and heartfelt, you think it was inappropriate for the occasion? I'm a non-believer, and yet I understand the point of it. I still don't quite grasp what makes you angry about it.

[Patrick1000]

I usually think that you are deadly serious.

The comment about Darwin was of course made in jest, but made my point I believe well. And of course, I know despite our differences, I know you to be more than honorable Complexity. Enough said, onward.....

[Patrick1000]

So, even if the reading was sincere and heartfelt, you think it was inappropriate for the occasion? I'm a non-believer, and yet I understand the point of it. I still don't quite grasp what makes you angry about it.

IT WAS NOT SINCERE!

Those clowns know nothing of Christianity. They are more than anything else soldiers, not that soldiers cannot be Christians. BUT THEIR INTENT WAS CLEAR, "the Ruskies suck cuz' they don't have a touchy-feely thang goin' on with God".

It is dumb, and embarrassing and obviously insincere. BARF!!!!!

[Agatha]

Who are you to determine their sincerity? You have not hitherto demonstrated any expertise in judging the emotions or motives of others; quite the reverse if anything.

Further, you are attempting to impose 2011 thinking on a 1968 event. The world is different both politically and socially, and cultural mores now are not what they were then. Part of the reason for the reading may well have been to 'get one over' on the USSR but so what? That was the political reality at that time.

As a lifelong atheist, I don't care what the astronauts decided to read in 1968. They were brave pioneers who had a hand in changing the world, they can read anything they damn well please. It doesn't affect reality whether they read from the Bible, from Darwin or from Tintin's Adventure On The Moon.

[Piggy]

IT WAS NOT SINCERE!

Those clowns know nothing of Christianity. They are more than anything else soldiers, not that soldiers cannot be Christians. BUT THEIR INTENT WAS CLEAR, "the Ruskies suck cuz' they don't have a touchy-feely thang goin' on with God".

It is dumb, and embarrassing and obviously insincere. BARF!!!!!

I've seen interviews with the people involved, and there's no doubt in my mind but that they were sincere.

Good God, man, you're talking about someone who's up in space, gazing down at the Earth... you don't think that's going to be profoundly moving? You don't think it's going to cause most people to have deeply spiritual thoughts and feelings?

And they've got to say something. And the world is listening, for real.

And you can't believe that a Christian man in the 20th century in all sincerity reads from the Bible, reads its most well known passage?

What's wrong with you?

[TheGoldcountry]

IT WAS NOT SINCERE!

Those clowns know nothing of Christianity. They are more than anything else soldiers, not that soldiers cannot be Christians. BUT THEIR INTENT WAS CLEAR, "the Ruskies suck cuz' they don't have a touchy-feely thang goin' on with God".

It is dumb, and embarrassing and obviously insincere. BARF!!!!!

Judging others and attributing motives to their actions for which you have no evidence doesn't sound like a very Christian attitude to me. Stop calling them clowns.

[TheGoldcountry]

I've seen interviews with the people involved, and there's no doubt in my mind but that they were sincere.

Good God, man, you're talking about someone who's up in space, gazing down at the Earth... you don't think that's going to be profoundly moving? You don't think it's going to cause most people to have deeply spiritual thoughts and feelings?

And they've got to say something. And the world is listening, for real.

And you can't believe that a Christian man in the 20th century in all sincerity reads from the Bible, reads its most well known passage?

What's wrong with you?

Well said, which I've come to expect from you.

[Patrick1000]

Who are you to determine their sincerity? You have not hitherto demonstrated any expertise in judging the emotions or motives of others; quite the reverse if anything.

Further, you are attempting to impose 2011 thinking on a 1968 event. The world is different both politically and socially, and cultural mores now are not what they were then. Part of the reason for the reading may well have been to 'get one over' on the USSR but so what? That was the political reality at that time.

As a lifelong atheist, I don't care what the astronauts decided to read in 1968. They were brave pioneers who had a hand in changing the world, they can read anything they damn well please. It doesn't affect reality whether they read from the Bible, from Darwin or from Tintin's Adventure On The Moon.

Fair enough, your points are well stated and well taken.....

That said, my take on this is very different. This Apollo 8 Unoriginal Bull was calculated ACTING. Granted, my opinion. We cannot get inside and access the vacuum of their crania.

[Mojo]

Relax, I have no plans to go off on evolution......The thread is politico-religious.


As is your suggestion that evolutionary theory needs to be changed to avoid conflict with the beliefs of the Christian majority in the USA, although here you argue the opposite position.

[Patrick1000]

As is your suggestion that evolutionary theory needs to be changed to avoid conflict with the beliefs of the Christian majority in the USA, although here you argue the opposite position.

Evolution Theory CANNOT BE CHANGED Mojo. Your suggestion that I ever suggested that is silly. As you'll note in reviewing my posts and to repeat for the umpteenth time, there is ample evidence for evolution occurring and being very very very very real. Common ancestry IS A FACT.

My point is that if you teach evolution in schools, one has to acknowledge directly that the tenets of evolution are in direct opposition to those of Christianity. In this way, one avoids the charge of "teaching atheism" in an unbalanced/unfair way.

I spoofed this perspective as above, suggesting that given the cislunar nincompoops read from the Bible, they were obligated to read from Darwin as well. It would simply be fair. Or better yet, they read Darwin and a trained chimp reads a few lines from Genesis.......

[Agatha]

My point is that if you teach evolution in schools, one has to acknowledge directly that the tenets of evolution are in direct opposition to those of Christianity. In this way, one avoids the charge of "teaching atheism" in an unbalanced/unfair way.

Who is levelling this charge, and why should anyone give them any credence whatsoever?

I cannot see why it would be necessary to muddle the teaching of an evidence-based subject with religion; evolutionary theory says nothing about the presence or absence of god or gods. Teaching evolution is not teaching atheism.

Evolutionary theory is taught here (UK) in Science and Biology classes as part of the National Curriculum; why on earth would that part of the curriculum involve any of the many different religions?

[Patrick1000]

Who is levelling this charge, and why should anyone give them any credence whatsoever?

I cannot see why it would be necessary to muddle the teaching of an evidence-based subject with religion; evolutionary theory says nothing about the presence or absence of god or gods. Teaching evolution is not teaching atheism.

Evolutionary theory is taught here (UK) in Science and Biology classes as part of the National Curriculum; why on earth would that part of the curriculum involve any of the many different religions?

Well, I am no fan of religion, but the law says no mixing religion with schooling, at least that is my general sense. One cannot push a particular religious perspective in a public school teaching situation.

The version of Darwinism typically presented in classrooms these days, the so called "modern synthesis, has as one of its features a rather complex mechanism of immense creative power which drives a dynamic of organism/biologic system change over time, and importantly, this mechanism is purposeless, mindless, undirected, unintentional. 75% of the young people hearing this have parents who believe quite the contrary, that we, you and me Agatha, and everyone else were created in the image and likeness of God with great purpose, great intention, and as a matter of fact, LOVE.

So Darwinism is in direct conflict with the tenets of Christianity, and as such, its teaching should not be allowed in American public schools, or so says our American laws separating church and state.

To actually follow through and enforce this, prohibit the teaching of Darwinism in public schools would be ridiculous I believe. On the other hand, it is very important to respect the beliefs of people, as silly as I find them. (I went to Catholic boys school by the way Agatha. I made my psychological jail break and became an atheist at age 12.)

How does the American educational community deal with this conundrum? I think the best way is to go ahead and teach evolution in schools and indicate explicitly that this is the case, that evolution is directly contradictory to Christianity. We could pass a law, the US Congress could, and make a provision allowing for the teaching of evolution in American public schools providing the conflict with Christianity AND OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ALSO VIEW HUMANITY AS AN INTENTIONAL CREATION be addressed directly and up front, without any equivocation whatsoever.

This plan might work well if we don't teach evolution until students are say 16, juniors in high school.

As crazy as this seems, there is no other good way out. If one argues that we should simply continue with the status quo, then creationists will eventually "win out", win the right to have intelligent design, or frank religious views/creationism presented in classrooms as it would be under those circumstances, the circumstances of teaching evolution without a nod to its conflict with God, only fair.

What a mess Darwin has gotten us in to.........

[Mojo]

Who is levelling this charge...?


Creationists.

ETA: and Patrick1000.

[Mojo]

Well, I am no fan of religion, but the law says no mixing religion with schooling, at least that is my general sense. One cannot push a particular religious perspective in a public school teaching situation.

The version of Darwinism typically presented in classrooms these days, the so called "modern synthesis, has as one of its features a rather complex mechanism of immense creative power which drives a dynamic of organism/biologic system change over time, and importantly, this mechanism is purposeless, mindless, undirected, unintentional. 75% of the young people hearing this have parents who believe quite the contrary, that we, you and me Agatha, and everyone else were created in the image and likeness of God with great purpose, great intention, and as a matter of fact, LOVE.

So Darwinism is in direct conflict with the tenets of Christianity, and as such, its teaching should not be allowed in American public schools, or so says our American laws separating church and state.

To actually follow through and enforce this, prohibit the teaching of Darwinism in public schools would be ridiculous I believe. On the other hand, it is very important to respect the beliefs of people, as silly as I find them. (I went to Catholic boys school by the way Agatha. I made my psychological jail break and became an atheist at age 12.)

How does the American educational community deal with this conundrum? I think the best way is to go ahead and teach evolution in schools and indicate explicitly that this is the case, that evolution is directly contradictory to Christianity. We could pass a law, the US Congress could, and make a provision allowing for the teaching of evolution in American public schools providing the conflict with Christianity AND OTHER RELIGIONS THAT ALSO VIEW HUMANITY AS AN INTENTIONAL CREATION be addressed directly and up front, without any equivocation whatsoever.

This plan might work well if we don't teach evolution until students are say 16, juniors in high school.

As crazy as this seems, there is no other good way out. If one argues that we should simply continue with the status quo, then creationists will eventually "win out", win the right to have intelligent design, or frank religious views/creationism presented in classrooms as it would be under those circumstances, the circumstances of teaching evolution without a nod to its conflict with God, only fair.

What a mess Darwin has gotten us in to.........


Your argument fails because "Darwinism" is not a religion.

[Agatha]

As Mojo says, you are approaching evolutionary theory as if it was a point of view, an opinion, akin to a religion. It is not.

That some elements of evolutionary theory directly contradict some of the more fundamental aspects of some religions does not mean that evolutionary theory is a religion, nor that teaching it violates any part of America's separation of church and state. If you think that it does, I submit that you may be mistaken in understanding your own country's legal framework.

By your argument, it would be necessary to bring the Bible into maths classes every time pi is used.

[tsig]

As Mojo says, you are approaching evolutionary theory as if it was a point of view, an opinion, akin to a religion. It is not.

That some elements of evolutionary theory directly contradict some of the more fundamental aspects of some religions does not mean that evolutionary theory is a religion, nor that teaching it violates any part of America's separation of church and state. If you think that it does, I submit that you may be mistaken in understanding your own country's legal framework.

By your argument, it would be necessary to bring the Bible into maths classes every time pi is used.

How will unicorns, behemoths and leviathans fit into the evolutionary tree?

[Donn]

Thread is some authentic weird, but I do enjoy the "separation of church and space" line!

[Patrick1000]

Your argument fails because "Darwinism" is not a religion.

It is hardly an argument.......Well sorta' hardly an argument.....

The part about Darwinism being in direct conflict with Christianity is not an argument. It is a simple point of fact. Darwinism says the mechanism for our creation is purposeless. Christians say most decidedly that it is otherwise. So that is a simple fact. DARWINISM MAKES THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN GOD. Darwinism does not claim that there is no God altogether, only that there is no such thing as a God interested in us enough to create each and every one of us with a furtherance of purpose in mind.

What one wants to do about this is another matter altogether. There I am ARGUING for something, and arguing strongly too. I say discuss the Darwinism/Christianity conflict directly in the classroom, otherwise the creationists WILL WIN OUT, seems not only inevitable, but actually rather fair to boot. And that statement is coming from an atheist.

So its not really appropriate to say I am arguing anything about Darwinism per se. I am simply citing/repeating its tenets and pointing out that they are in direct conflict with those of Christianity.

If you have a better sense as to what we should do with this difficult fact Mojo, by all means , let us hear it.

[tsig]

It is hardly an argument.......Well sorta' hardly an argument.....

The part about Darwinism being in direct conflict with Christianity is not an argument. It is a simple point of fact. Darwinism says the mechanism for our creation is purposeless. Christians say most decidedly that it is otherwise. So that is a simple fact. DARWINISM MAKES THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN GOD. Darwinism does not claim that there is no God altogether, only that there is no such thing as a God interested in us enough to create each and every one of us with a furtherance of purpose in mind.

What one wants to do about this is another matter altogether. There I am ARGUING for something, and arguing strongly too. I say discuss the Darwinism/Christianity conflict directly in the classroom, otherwise the creationists WILL WIN OUT, seems not only inevitable, but actually rather fair to boot. And that statement is coming from an atheist.

So its not really appropriate to say I am arguing anything about Darwinism per se. I am simply citing/repeating its tenets and pointing out that they are in direct conflict with those of Christianity.

If you have a better sense as to what we should do with this difficult fact Mojo, by all means , let us hear it.

Evolution tells us how our body was created while Christianity tells us how are our soul was created.

(that's how the RCC does it)

[Patrick1000]

Evolution tells us how our body was created while Christianity tells us how are our soul was created.

(that's how the RCC does it)

Poor tsig......... didn't know you were a Christian.....Finally got to you with a simple fact. Well at least I am on your side in this one, the Christian side. Maybe the religious right should hire ME DoctorPat to advocate on their behalf, would seem I'm pretty good, the only one capable in these JRANDI parts anyway, at making the only point worth making in this regard.

You cannot have it both ways tsig. Your argument is less than pathetically weak. It is quite literally nonsensical. The US Supreme Court would ask you what you meant by a soul and of course any answer you gave, the definition anyone gave of a soul, would be GOOBLEDYGOOK, one not allowed in schools as well. Get it tsig? You're talkin' religion here my friend with your "soul" business. Someone like me would say it simply doesn't exist, and regardless of my views, courts cannot view a soul as relevant in any way whatsoever in such circumstances.

Squirming? Bet you are.........

And so, as you see, they should have loaded that monkey into the plane with the cislunar nitwits. It would have been only fair.

[carlitos]

Did he refer to the first man on the moon as a trained chimp? Did he? ETA - nitwits? nincompoops? The first men on the moon?

[Akhenaten]

Did he refer to the first man on the moon as a trained chimp? Did he? ETA - nitwits? nincompoops? The first men on the moon?





And tsig as a Christian. It's Wrongorama 2011!

[tsig]

Evolution tells us how our body was created while Christianity tells us how are our soul was created.

(that's how the RCC does it)

Poor tsig......... didn't know you were a Christian.....Finally got to you with a simple fact. Well at least I am on your side in this one, the Christian side. Maybe the religious right should hire ME DoctorPat to advocate on their behalf, would seem I'm pretty good, the only one capable in these JRANDI parts anyway, at making the only point worth making in this regard.

You cannot have it both ways tsig. Your argument is less than pathetically weak. It is quite literally nonsensical. The US Supreme Court would ask you what you meant by a soul and of course any answer you gave, the definition anyone gave of a soul, would be GOOBLEDYGOOK, one not allowed in schools as well. Get it tsig? You're talkin' religion here my friend with your "soul" business. Someone like me would say it simply doesn't exist, and regardless of my views, courts cannot view a soul as relevant in any way whatsoever in such circumstances.

Squirming? Bet you are.........

And so, as you see, they should have loaded that monkey into the plane with the cislunar nitwits. It would have been only fair.

You missed the hilited portion of my post P103 so your rant is totally misplaced..

[tsig]

And tsig as a Christian. It's Wrongorama 2011!

He seems to have missed that last line in my post.:)

I was just trying to give him the standard Christian apologetics by the largest Christian group which he apparently had never heard yet he decided to make it personal.:(

[X]

Did he refer to the first man on the moon as a trained chimp? Did he? ETA - nitwits? nincompoops? The first men on the moon?


Do NOT venture into the Conspiracy Theories subforum, my friend. Especially not to a thread entitles "Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity".


And why is it that tsig is not allowed to state the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church without being attacked, while Patrick feels he should be able to state the "Darwinist" viewpoint (which is an erroneously simplistic and incomplete view of evolution, from the looks of things) and be protected from criticism?

[Agatha]

Carlitos, you'll probably get used to Patrick's style of argument; much depends on insulting people who have achieved greatness.

No, Patrick. Darwin was not an atheist, he was agnostic. He did not claim there was no god. Further, evolutionary theory as we understand it today has moved on from Darwin's theories; I don't know if you've noticed this but it's actually 2011, not the late 19th century.

However, the point is moot because you are mistaken if you think that teaching evolutionary theory in American schools is in any way a breach of your constitution. If you believe it is, I suggest you show it rather than make bald assertions.

[carlitos]

Carlitos, you'll probably get used to Patrick's style of argument; much depends on insulting people who have achieved greatness.

I'm sure that it's been suggested before, but someone should really introduce him to Buzz Aldrin. :D

FUI36tPKDg4

[Agatha]

It's been suggested, yes. :D I can't look at youtube vids at the moment but I'm guessing that's Bart Sibrel?

[Patrick1000]

I thought that you thought the space program was a hoax?

Whether the think is real or fake is irrelevant.....

Think I made the point before. It is dumb bad acting regardless, insincere bull, the Bible stuff that is.

[Patrick1000]

Did he refer to the first man on the moon as a trained chimp? Did he? ETA - nitwits? nincompoops? The first men on the moon?

Yes Lovell, Anders and Borman are NITWITS, YOYOS, NINCOMPOOPS, DUFUSES, TWITS, DING-A-LINGS........clear enough?........

I especially dislike greasy faced Lovell who made all that cash on that idiotic Apollo 13 movie,,,, UGHGHHHHHH How stupid was that????!!!???!!!

Reading the Bible in outer space for political gain, the astronauts' pawning themselves off as sensitive thoughtful religious types makes me want to puke all over the Smithsonian Museum Space exhibits......

[Patrick1000]

You missed the hilited portion of my post P103 so your rant is totally misplaced..


I thought that was your point and your argument....sorry, didn't mean to go off on you like that......

[Patrick1000]

Carlitos, you'll probably get used to Patrick's style of argument; much depends on insulting people who have achieved greatness.

No, Patrick. Darwin was not an atheist, he was agnostic. He did not claim there was no god. Further, evolutionary theory as we understand it today has moved on from Darwin's theories; I don't know if you've noticed this but it's actually 2011, not the late 19th century.

However, the point is moot because you are mistaken if you think that teaching evolutionary theory in American schools is in any way a breach of your constitution. If you believe it is, I suggest you show it rather than make bald assertions.

This thread is not about Darwinism per se......It is not about teaching evolution in schools, though I am happy to continue discussing that if you like, the thread is about the cislunar nitwits and their passion for insincere manipulation, at least they could have attempted a sincere manipulation with their cock 'n' bull bull bull......,.

[Donn]

Love this line:
Evolution tells us how our body was created while Christianity tells us how are our soul was created.

Given how real souls are, I think it neatly divides the work load between the two factions.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I thought that you thought the space program was a hoax?

He's practicing to see if he can believe two contradictory things before lunch...

[Andrew Wiggin]

Did he refer to the first man on the moon as a trained chimp? Did he? ETA - nitwits? nincompoops? The first men on the moon?

Yah. Men who had a bigger, brassier pair than most of us will ever see...

[tsig]

Love this line:

Given how real souls are, I think it neatly divides the work load between the two factions.

It does, doesn't it. Science tells us how reality works while religion has a fiat reality. A fiat reality is one where things work by divine fiat, if you want to know the truth you study the divine book of fiats, how it's been interpreted and finally how you understand it, all this happens in the mind with no connection to the outside world.

[carlitos]

Yes Lovell, Anders and Borman are NITWITS, YOYOS, NINCOMPOOPS, DUFUSES, TWITS, DING-A-LINGS........clear enough?........

I see that you have started topics in multiple sub-forums here. I suppose you enjoy posting this type of offensive nonsense to troll for a reaction from as wide an audience as possible.

I especially dislike greasy faced Lovell who made all that cash on that idiotic Apollo 13 movie,,,, UGHGHHHHHH How stupid was that????!!!???!!!

I worked someone who worked on Apollo 13, and I have met Jim Lovell. Both of these gentlemen are able to carry on intelligent conversations in English. This will be my final response to Patrick1000.

[Piggy]

Reading the Bible in outer space for political gain, the astronauts' pawning themselves off as sensitive thoughtful religious types makes me want to puke all over the Smithsonian Museum Space exhibits......

Then go do it and be done with it.

You've got this opinion stuck in your throat, maybe that'll dislodge it.

And maybe on your way back you can pick up some sort of evidence to back your slander.

I doubt it, tho.

[tsig]

I thought that was your point and your argument....sorry, didn't mean to go off on you like that......

:thanks:

[Agatha]

His derail into insulting better men than he could ever hope to be has neatly allowed him to sidestep the point of this thread; which as I recall was that astronauts in 1968 read a passage from the Bible.

Many people, some of whom self-identify as atheists, have answered with a resounding shrug of the the shoulders and a "so?".

[Donn]

Is P1k allowed to spew such invective at people and get away with it?

[AdMan]

Is P1k allowed to spew such invective at people and get away with it?


That is his current preferred method of argument.

Childish and ineffective, yes, but when has that stopped Patrick?

[Agatha]

Is P1k allowed to spew such invective at people and get away with it? As long as the targets of his undeserved invective are not members here, he can insult them as much as he pleases. He may not be aware that in doing so he undermines any argument he has, but of course he may be aware and simply does not care.

Here, his contention that in 1968 the astronauts who had achieved something more wonderful than most people could ever hope for should have read from one book of nonsense (the I-Ching) as well as another book of nonsense (the Bible) has failed on so many levels it's like that fractal wrongness poster.

Patrick, why would the astronauts be required to read from another book of fiction?

Is it your contention that they should have aimed for some kind of balance, and if so, why the I-Ching?

Given that you claim to be in your fifties, why do you show such a lack of understanding of the political climate of the 1960s?

[tsig]

Is P1k allowed to spew such invective at people and get away with it?

Unless they're members of the forum. hummm.

[tsig]

As long as the targets of his undeserved invective are not members here, he can insult them as much as he pleases. He may not be aware that in doing so he undermines any argument he has, but of course he may be aware and simply does not care.

Here, his contention that in 1968 the astronauts who had achieved something more wonderful than most people could ever hope for should have read from one book of nonsense (the I-Ching) as well as another book of nonsense (the Bible) has failed on so many levels it's like that fractal wrongness poster.

Patrick, why would the astronauts be required to read from another book of fiction?

Is it your contention that they should have aimed for some kind of balance, and if so, why the I-Ching?

Given that you claim to be in your fifties, why do you show such a lack of understanding of the political climate of the 1960s?

When a poster has to resort to greater and greater levels of venom to get a reply SBM* usually follows.

*suicide by mod

[carlitos]

Unless those astronauts are JREF members, I don't believe that they are protected from personal attack. That doesn't mean that you have to read and react to it, though.

[Patrick1000]

Unless those astronauts are JREF members, I don't believe that they are protected from personal attack. That doesn't mean that you have to read and react to it, though.

The world's eyes are on these guys, bringing God of any sort into this is calculated jive

[tsig]

The world's eyes are on these guys, bringing God of any sort into this is calculated jive

Since the majority of the world believes in god what's the problem?

[kerikiwi]

The world's eyes are on these guys, bringing God of any sort into this is calculated jive

Still? I haven't looked at them for years (although the school I teach at has a US flag which was taken to the moon and back)

[kerikiwi]

Since the majority of the world believes in god what's the problem?

The majority of the world does not believe in 'god'.

[R.A.F.]

Well, I am no fan of religion...

So...using religion as an excuse to bash astronauts...why am I not surprised.


It really is a shame that you are not a "fan" of rationality.

[R.A.F.]

Unless those astronauts are JREF members, I don't believe that they are protected from personal attack.

Nope...and that is one of the biggest failings of this board...

[R.A.F.]

The world's eyes are on these guys, bringing God of any sort into this is calculated jive

I don't think that it was appropriate for astronauts to profess their religious "feelings", but it doesn't keep me up at night...it simply isn't that important of thing to be concerned about.


On the other hand...that this bothers you so...makes me very happy. :) :)

[Mojo]

"Inconsistent, and therefore untrue", as he likes to say.


See also this from the thread he started to object to the current theory of evolution: Here in the United States, 75% of adults, so I have read, identify themselves as Christians. That is 175 million people, the vast majority of voters. In addition, there is a sizable minority of other theists; Jews, Muslims, that like Christians, belong to a faith characterized by the believers having a personal relationship with their God.

As such, the vast majority of Americans, with respect to their most fundamental views on who they are, would be classified as intelligent design advocates. To be a Christian is to view this world and oneself as a creation, AN INTENTIONAL CREATION. Were I a Christian, I would view myself as being made by God, AND! most importantly, God made me with a purpose. This was no whim, this world, and the people in it. This is what religion in our occidental tradition is all about.

Now, you have 175 million people in the US, self identified as intelligent design advocates. One then introduces "evolution", undirected, unintentional, purposeless, wholly natural evolution. Cognitive dissonance anyone? A bit of an understatement my friends, wouldn't you say???????........


...and contrast with his position in this thread.

[Piggy]

Sure it is my opinion but when was the last time you witnessed a huge and simultaneously sincere PR stunt? By their very nature PR stunts are insincere.

You wouldn't have commemorated the event?

Or maybe you would have complained about something instead.

Patrick1000 looks at Earth from space, declares, "Can you believe that idiot Isaac Newton wrote more about religion than science just to pretend he was a Christian... how phony can you get?"

Millions across globe left w/ WTF looks on their faces.

[Piggy]

Reading threads like these is like going to the zoo and seeing a monkey flinging poo from its cage. Are you going to argue with the monkey, or just forget about it when you've moved on?

Well, first, I'm going to get him to fling enough poo that I feel like I've gotten my ticket's worth.

Then I'll forget it.

[tsig]

Well, first, I'm going to get him to fling enough poo that I feel like I've gotten my ticket's worth.

Then I'll forget it.

Here's more than your ticket's worth:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216531

[Patrick1000]

You wouldn't have commemorated the event?

Or maybe you would have complained about something instead.

Patrick1000 looks at Earth from space, declares, "Can you believe that idiot Isaac Newton wrote more about religion than science just to pretend he was a Christian... how phony can you get?"

Millions across globe left w/ WTF looks on their faces.

So what if Isaac Newton believes that nonsense about Christ? The rest of us do not have to.

AND Newton was wrong about gravity by the way, so he got that one wrong as well.....

[Mojo]

So what if Isaac Newton believes that nonsense about Christ?


Actually, he believed a slightly different nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#Orthodoxy).

[Jontg]

This makes me wonder... what happens when the lesser-known religions get offworld? Like, should Sikh astronauts wear the turbans under the spacesuits or over them? Does ahimsa apply to martian doomsday pathogens? And if Christians get to pray on the job, what prevents the first Lakota in space from threading carbon-microfiber thongs through his flesh and going EV for a sun-dance spacewalk?

[Piggy]

So what if Isaac Newton believes that nonsense about Christ? The rest of us do not have to.

Damn right, son! You tell 'em!

AND Newton was wrong about gravity by the way, so he got that one wrong as well.....

No, he got it right. His math still gets us to the moon and Mars.

That math doesn't apply in some circumstances, but those were circumstances he never described, because he couldn't have known about them.

[Tomblvd]

They were pilots, not scientists, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised that they might be religious.

Steve S


Aldrin had a Ph.D in Astronautics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Armstong could only manage a masters degree in aerospace engineering.

(piker) ;-)

[R.A.F.]

Wow...this thread sure got "gutted".

[Patrick1000]

Damn right, son! You tell 'em!



No, he got it right. His math still gets us to the moon and Mars.

That math doesn't apply in some circumstances, but those were circumstances he never described, because he couldn't have known about them.

Are you SURE that it was not his Christ skills that got us to the moon ?

[Mojo]

Are you SURE that it was not his Christ skills that got us to the moon ?


Yes.

[Patrick1000]

Yes.


How would you know that Mojo???????, just playing DEVIL"S ADVOCATE...

[kerikiwi]

How would you know that Mojo???????, just playing DEVIL"S ADVOCATE...

Why do you keep repeating yourself?
inquiring minds (well, this inquiring mind) want to know

[tsig]

Are you SURE that it was not his Christ skills that got us to the moon ?

The astronauts ascended to the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesusnded

[Patrick1000]

Why do you keep repeating yourself?
inquiring minds (well, this inquiring mind) want to know

That wasn't a repeat, a was pressing the point from the side of God.....That is hardly what I was doing to begin with......

[Patrick1000]

the astronauts ascended to the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ascension_of_jesusnded

cool.......

[kerikiwi]

cool.......

So, why the repetition in this one?
Cool?



Cool?

Seriously, why the repetition in every post?

[Agatha]

He explained in another thread that his habit of using the first few words of his post as a title is in order to "index his posts". How and why the repetition achieves this has not been explained.

[Patrick1000]

So, why the repetition in this one?
Cool?



Seriously, why the repetition in every post?

What do you mean repetition?

[Patrick1000]

He explained in another thread that his habit of using the first few words of his post as a title is in order to "index his posts". How and why the repetition achieves this has not been explained.

Sort of a bad habit, clicking a "button" repeats the line.....

I use the tool in other contexts to remember where I'm at in an "essay"(math writing mostly). I have software that allows me to store sentences/phrases in various ways and then repeat them. Not only the first sentence of these posts, but other single lines/sentences/groups of phrases. A bit hard to explain if you are not familiar with the software(Japanese and very esoteric). It can be very useful as a "writing tool" when working with numbers mostly, and not words. Again hard to explain if you don't have a need for it, so will leave it at that.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/d/c/5/dc5733a3e1308c179993150752aa13b7.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/1/b/01b7ba1252ad61519980b9085c13869e.png


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........oh now I remember.........!!!!!!....!!!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/1/b/01b7ba1252ad61519980b9085c13869e.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/e/3/4e32b2317f98eb2934b7d97f83678abd.png

yes......now I remember.......!!!!!...!!!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/e/3/4e32b2317f98eb2934b7d97f83678abd.png

and.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/f/1/6/f16b1c8e0f7713c23971ce0496e3fe51.png

Sort of like that the habit goes. Useful there, see......? Not a "bad habit", but a useful tool in that context(mathematics)....... When doing JRANDI perhaps annoying for some I am gathering.....

[tsig]

Sort of a bad habit, clicking a "button" repeats the line.....

I use the tool in other contexts to remember where I'm at in an "essay"(math writing mostly). I have software that allows me to store sentences/phrases in various ways and then repeat them. Not only the first sentence of these posts, but other single lines/sentences/groups of phrases. A bit hard to explain if you are not familiar with the software(Japanese and very esoteric). It can be very useful as a "writing tool" when working with numbers mostly, and not words. Again hard to explain if you don't have a need for it, so will leave it at that.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

Habit acquired over many years time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/d/c/5/dc5733a3e1308c179993150752aa13b7.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/1/b/01b7ba1252ad61519980b9085c13869e.png


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........oh now I remember.........!!!!!!....!!!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/1/b/01b7ba1252ad61519980b9085c13869e.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/e/3/4e32b2317f98eb2934b7d97f83678abd.png

yes......now I remember.......!!!!!...!!!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/e/3/4e32b2317f98eb2934b7d97f83678abd.png

and.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/f/1/6/f16b1c8e0f7713c23971ce0496e3fe51.png

Sort of like that the habit goes. Useful there, see......? Not a "bad habit", but a useful tool in that context(mathematics)....... When doing JRANDI perhaps annoying for some I am gathering.....

IOW you're deliberately using different ways of posting to irritate people?

[JeanFromBNA]

I agree with those who said that you're imposing 2011 standards on 1968. I don't know what the astronauts really personally believed, but atheism was still uncommon in the US in 1968, and admitting to it still more so. So if they were cowards about admitting that they didn't believe, I can live with that compared to everything else that they sacrificed to go to the moon.

I recently purchased a collection of science fiction short stories that were written between 1929 and 1964 for a young friend who was becoming interested in the genre. I could not find a single one in which these forward thinking authors: Huxley, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, Clarke, et al, could conceive of a woman in a position of authority. In the middle of the cold war, they could conceive that a Russian would share a space craft. In the midst of the struggle for racial equality, a "negro" would perform a vital function. But women were helpmates at best. So, yeah, I could see how ridding oneself of a god delusion is a struggle that takes time.

[Patrick1000]

IOW you're deliberately using different ways of posting to irritate people?

I am not sure I understand, usually I get accused of one irritating thing, too long..

At any rate, none of it has to do with the subject, my posting style, now does it?

I still think the astronauts were a bit off with this hokey religious ploy, don't you tsig?

[Patrick1000]

I agree with those who said that you're imposing 2011 standards on 1968. I don't know what the astronauts really personally believed, but atheism was still uncommon in the US in 1968, and admitting to it still more so. So if they were cowards about admitting that they didn't believe, I can live with that compared to everything else that they sacrificed to go to the moon.

I recently purchased a collection of science fiction short stories that were written between 1929 and 1964 for a young friend who was becoming interested in the genre. I could not find a single one in which these forward thinking authors: Huxley, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, Clarke, et al, could conceive of a woman in a position of authority. In the middle of the cold war, they could conceive that a Russian would share a space craft. In the midst of the struggle for racial equality, a "negro" would perform a vital function. But women were helpmates at best. So, yeah, I could see how ridding oneself of a god delusion is a struggle that takes time.

Great Post JeanFromBNA......I think I'd have to agree with most everything there.

That said, I don't think the astronauts cowards, not in the sense in which you refer.

God is hard to shake, took me 15 years or so.

Again, great post.....

[Donn]

Low praise indeed.

[Patrick1000]

Actually, he believed a slightly different nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#Orthodoxy).

Hey that was interesting about Newton's religious beliefs....Thanks for that so much.....

[carlitos]

IOW you're deliberately using different ways of posting to irritate people?

Yeah, but you have to admit that this lack of self-awareness is pretty funny:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674ef4e474ca6b9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24813)

[Patrick1000]

Yeah, but you have to admit that this lack of self-awareness is pretty funny:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674ef4e474ca6b9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24813)

Dude, don't take it all so seriously....The style has its advantages given its filing/record keeping benefits, but to be sure, it bugs some, so I guess that can be construed as a benefit as well. Get it?

Don't be so concrete carlitos, lighten up, have fun, enjoy life and the world of religious astronuts

[kerikiwi]

Dude, don't take it all so seriously....The style has its advantages given its filing/record keeping benefits, but to be sure, it bugs some, so I guess that can be construed as a benefit as well. Get it?

Don't be so concrete carlitos, lighten up, have fun, enjoy life and the world of religious astronuts

Um, the poster you are telling not to take it seriously, to lighten up, to have fun, actually said the lack of self-awareness was pretty funny.

[carlitos]

Um, the poster you are telling not to take it seriously, to lighten up, to have fun, actually said the lack of self-awareness was pretty funny.

I did indeed. His explanations of this obscure, Japanese software that helps with math problems and "indexes" his posts are entertaining. I am smiling while typing this. If he could explain it coherently, it might be interesting to know what in the world is on his computer screen. I post here with a phone, tablet and web browser, and can't imagine what esoteric thingie he is using to "index" his posts. And where, for Pete's sake, they might be "indexed" if not here.

[Patrick1000]

I did indeed. His explanations of this obscure, Japanese software that helps with math problems and "indexes" his posts are entertaining. I am smiling while typing this. If he could explain it coherently, it might be interesting to know what in the world is on his computer screen. I post here with a phone, tablet and web browser, and can't imagine what esoteric thingie he is using to "index" his posts. And where, for Pete's sake, they might be "indexed" if not here.

Index just means indexed here, on JRANDI, nothing more complicated than that....

[Patrick1000]

Um, the poster you are telling not to take it seriously, to lighten up, to have fun, actually said the lack of self-awareness was pretty funny.

Just kidding, he doesn't seem the serious type at'tal...................

[carlitos]

Patrick1000,

Your posts are "indexed" at this forum exactly the same as everyone else's. You typing in the same thing twice doesn't change that. No one has any idea what you are talking about. But some of us do indeed find it humorous that someone would need to type "what do you mean repetition?" twice. That's funny. And that stream of consciousness thing about Japanese software and math equations? Also gave me a chuckle. Apologies for the continued tangent.

[tsig]

Patrick1000,

Your posts are "indexed" at this forum exactly the same as everyone else's. You typing in the same thing twice doesn't change that. No one has any idea what you are talking about. But some of us do indeed find it humorous that someone would need to type "what do you mean repetition?" twice. That's funny. And that stream of consciousness thing about Japanese software and math equations? Also gave me a chuckle. Apologies for the continued tangent.

This whole indexing thing implies that he's going to make use of the posts here somewhere else.

[Patrick1000]

This whole indexing thing implies that he's going to make use of the posts here somewhere else.

Hardly, though not a bad idea for a one more energetic and into it than I....

I wonder if Jim Lovell is going to church tomorrow?

[AdMan]

This whole indexing thing implies that he's going to make use of the posts here somewhere else.


Yet that implies that there is any value in his posts beyond garbage.

Although I suppose spreading garbage may be a purpose unto itself, for some people...

[carlitos]

This whole indexing thing implies that he's going to make use of the posts here somewhere else.

I realize that it's a derail, but how can this possibly work? There is a web browser window where you type your words. Above is a separate window where P1k types some more words, usually just a repetition of the first words below. How could you use both fields to "index" anything? You'd have to manually copy the top part and bottom parts separately, then paste into a document or something. And what was that deal with math equations?

P1K, if you are capable of answer a direct question, what software program are you using to post here?