The Christian Roots of America's Schools

[DOC]

In the book entitled "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?", authors Dr James Kennedy and J. Newcombe have a chapter that talks about Christianity's impact on education. I'll quote some excerpts:

"Almost every one of the first 123 colleges and universities in the US had Christian origins... Harvard, Yale, William and Mary {Jefferson's alma mater}, Brown, Princeton, New York Univ., Northwestern Univ., and other schools have thouroughly Christian roots. Harvard got its start from the donations of money and books from Reverend John Harvard... Dartmouth was founded to train missionaries to the Indians. William and Mary was created "that the Christian faith might be propagated"31 An early advertisement for King's College, which opened in 1754 and is now Columbia University read: "the chief thing that is aimed at in this college is to teach and engage children to know God in Jesus Christ."32 The president of Princeton. Rev. John Witherspoon, said: "Cursed be all learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ"33... Today, for the most part, God's Word is mocked in the very schools that were founded by the sweat of Christians".

Also, come in a talk about any subjects dealing with religion and education.

[Buckaroo]

Today, for the most part, God's Word is mocked in the very schools that were founded by the sweat of Christians".


Then they're doing something right, aren't they? :decool:

I don't understand how founders' motivations from hundreds of years ago should have any bearing on how these institutions handle themselves today.

[drkitten]

In the book entitled "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?", authors Dr James Kennedy and J. Newcombe have a chapter that talks about Christianity's impact on education. I'll quote some excerpts

Oh, goody gumdrops. Another thread where DOC repeats more of Kennedy's lies.

This is phase one of a multi-phase project. Phase two will be where Kennedy's lies are discredited by some elementary research. Phase three will be where DOC tells more lies of his own. Phase four will be where DOC's personal lies are discredited.

I'm hoping that by posting this, we can jump straight to phase five, where DOC indignantly demands proof of his lies so that he can ignore the proof and return to phase 1.

[Skeptic Guy]

Oh, my head hurts...

[drkitten]

Also, come in a talk about any subjects dealing with religion and education.

Sounds good.

DOC, why do you feel it is appropriate for you to lie when you attempt to educate other people about your religion?

[Foster Zygote]

Today, for the most part, God's Word is mocked in the very schools that were founded by the sweat of Christians".

Care to cite an example of this?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Funny, DOC, I had you pegged as one who favoured abstinence-only sex ed.

[quixotecoyote]

So hundreds of years ago, a reverend said that religion was important.

Ok, I'm ready to destroy secular society. Anyone else?

[thaiboxerken]

Hey, I bet slaves even built some of the schools in those early days of the USA. We should bring slavery back too!

[kmortis]

So hundreds of years ago, a reverend said that religion was important.

Ok, I'm ready to destroy secular society. Anyone else?

* kmortis builds a pitchfork/torch stand

PITCHFORKS! Getcher PITCHFORKS! Perfect thing for tearing down the Wall of Seperation! And ifn yer gettin' a PITCHFORK might as well getcher TORCH. TORCHES, get 'em while they're hot.

[JoeEllison]

So what?

[JoeEllison]

Hey, I bet slaves even built some of the schools in those early days of the USA. We should bring slavery back too!

And slaughter some Native Americans... DOC approved of that too.:rolleyes:

[joobz]

why should we care if god is mocked or not?
we live in the Secular United States. God shouldn't be there at all.
Do you care if allah is mock in schools?

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Jesus-Never-Been-Born/dp/078527040X

[Cainkane1]

I don't see what jesus has to do with the three R's?

[Gib]

Jesus' three Rs?
Rubbish, wrong, arrogance

[kmortis]

I don't see what jesus has to do with the three R's?

Now-a-days? Not too much. Back then? He was inserted into everything. The FFs, for the most part were Deists or Freethinking Christians. The common folk, however, we still very religious. DOC, for all his innane posts, is correct. The first schools were founded in this country with a religious bent. Part of that is that it was the norm that a college/university were attached to a Church. Churches had the tradition of scholarship needed to have a successful school.

As time has gone on, however, it's been realized that to have all Unis controlled by religion can be a hamper to free investigation into various avenues of thought. This is why we've seen most of the major universities move away from their religious roots.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, I bet slaves even built some of the schools in those early days of the USA. We should bring slavery back too!

As long as we don't teach women I am in.

[joobz]

Now-a-days? Not too much. Back then? He was inserted into everything. The FFs, for the most part were Deists or Freethinking Christians. The common folk, however, we still very religious. DOC, for all his innane posts, is correct. The first schools were founded in this country with a religious bent. Part of that is that it was the norm that a college/university were attached to a Church. Churches had the tradition of scholarship needed to have a successful school.

As time has gone on, however, it's been realized that to have all Unis controlled by religion can be a hamper to free investigation into various avenues of thought. This is why we've seen most of the major universities move away from their religious roots.
Yup, and our secular government established the non-religuous, secular land grant universities as a way of providing quality education to everyone. In part, to stave off the socioeconomic gap that was widening due to the fact that the religious-based institutions were mainly catering to the social elite.

[kmortis]

Yup, and our secular government established the non-religuous, secular land grant universities as a way of providing quality education to everyone. In part, to stave off the socioeconomic gap that was widening due to the fact that the religious-based institutions were mainly catering to the social elite.

Plus, on the lower grade level front, secularization occured at the hands of the religious leaders of the day to make the schools more acceptable to a greater number of Christian denominations. It was the religious that got Bible reading taken out (cause they couldn't agree on a version). Go and read "Religious Illiteracy (http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060846704/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2807764-6920764?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189607332&sr=8-1)" for more information.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't see what jesus has to do with the three R's?

Religion, Reformation and Reconstructionism.

Sheeesh, know your enemies.

Of course if I were in charge of America we'd concentrate on the "3 Es" -

Education, Evolution and Enlightenment.

[Garrette]

Of course if I were in charge of America we'd concentrate on the "3 Es" -

Education, Evolution and Enlightenment.Not "Ears?" As in Ears on Mouses?

[H3LL]

I love reading DOC's posts.

It reminds me that the endemic "Lying for Jesus" of most xians is the root cause of me becoming an atheist.

I just wish I had come across DOC-like posts earlier in my life.

I wish I could get a refund from the "Liars for Jesus" for all the time, effort and money that I wasted because of them.

DOC - On behalf of all "Liars for Jesus" you owe me $1,000's - I will accept cash.

.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not "Ears?" As in Ears on Mouses?

How could I forget. That will be in the supplimental material and, of course, will be discussed during holidays and dates worthy of note. Oh, and whenever Elvis comes up.

[Zep]

How could I forget. That will be in the supplimental material and, of course, will be discussed during holidays and dates worthy of note. Oh, and whenever Elvis comes up.Wouldn't it be better to leave Elvis exactly where he is? Ew.

[hgc]

Root rot.

[DOC]

Oh, goody gumdrops. Another thread where DOC repeats more of Kennedy's lies.

This is phase one of a multi-phase project. Phase two will be where Kennedy's lies are discredited by some elementary research. Phase three will be where DOC tells more lies of his own. Phase four will be where DOC's personal lies are discredited.

I'm hoping that by posting this, we can jump straight to phase five, where DOC indignantly demands proof of his lies so that he can ignore the proof and return to phase 1.


What does it say about a person when he is irritated about learning some history about his own country.

And what does it say about the direction a country is going when a considerable number of its citizens show displeasure at threads that simply discuss their country's history.

[DOC]

Care to cite an example of this?


Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school. And remember this is a school that was founded partially to propagate the Christian faith.

"Administrators at the College of William & Mary, responding to months of harsh criticism from alumni, ordered the immediate return of a cross to the Williamsburg school's historic Wren Chapel yesterday. Alumni angered by the removal of the cross in October threatened to withhold millions of dollars of donations -- including a $12 million gift."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=WilliamAndMary

[UnrepentantSinner]

What does it say about a person when he is irritated about learning some people engaging in revisionist history about his own country.
Strike and blue insert my correction.

And I'd say that means he's a concerned citizen worried about Reconstructionists and Revisionists like Kennedy and Barton.

My kind of American.

[DOC]

And slaughter some Native Americans... DOC approved of that too.:rolleyes:

If your going to say I approved of the slaughter of Native Americans, then your going to have to say you approved of the slaughter of up to 50,000 Native Americans a year by the Aztecs.

[DOC]

Strike and blue insert my correction.

And I'd say that means he's a concerned citizen worried about Reconstructionists and Revisionists like Kennedy and Barton.

My kind of American.

What part of the OP is revisionist history.

[JoeEllison]

If your going to say I approved of the slaughter of Native Americans, then your going to have to say you approved of the slaughter of up to 50,000 Native Americans a year by the Aztecs.

Guys, does a logical fallacy of this magnitude count as an automatic lie as well?

[joobz]

What part of the OP is revisionist history.
This exact OP here, not much. except you have yet to prove or provide evidence for this statement.
Today, for the most part, God's Word is mocked in the very schools that were founded by the sweat of Christians".

And as Kmortis and myself pointed out, the original US schools were of religious origin. however, we improved the school system since then. One of the many improvements has been the secularization of eduation.

Remember that chemistry has it's origins in Alchemy, but that doesn't mean alchemy is any more valid. It just means we know better now.

[JoeEllison]

This exact OP here, not much. except you have yet to prove or provide evidence for this statement.

Thats because his statement is a lie. He's a Liar for Jesus, and honesty and integrity just don't matter to that type.

[bokonon]

God is being mocked? Is that like saying the invisible pink unicorn prances funny, and doesn't clean up after himself?

[JoeEllison]

God is being mocked? Is that like saying the invisible pink unicorn prances funny, and doesn't clean up after himself?

Yeah... and about exactly as many people are mocking unicorns as are mocking "God". It is one of those pathetic lies Christians tell each other to prop up their persecution delusions. They are sad, hateful people, who blame others for their deep unhappiness. They are empty, and since their cult hasn't filled the emptiness, they blame everyone else for not joining their cult.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What part of the OP is revisionist history.

You'd think someone who doesn't view the world in black and white terms would get sick of your myopic pedranty after a few months but all it does it energize me. The OP is technically correct, but the overall theme of the revisionist history that Kennedy, Barton and you engage in should be exposed for the BS that it is.

I'm going to make a bet with you DOC. There's a book I'd like you to read. You should be able to get an older edition via Inter-library loan if your local site doesn't have it. "The Godless Constitution". Read it and then try and defend your position that America was supposed to be JerUSAlem on the Patomac.

Are you up to it?

[H3LL]

God is being mocked? Is that like saying the invisible pink unicorn prances funny, and doesn't clean up after himself?

The IPU is a he! :jaw-dropp


.

[brodski]

Is the fact that many prestigious US schools were founded by Christians with a Christian element more or less relevant than the fact that Christianity was founded on Judaism?
I mean, if it is wrong for those schools to change to become secular then it follows that it is also wrong for Christians to not require circumcision as a part of their faith, to work on Saturday and to not keep kosher. Anything else would be a betrayal of roots.

So, what about it DOC? Will you be giving up bacon? Or anything else?

[Foster Zygote]

Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school. And remember this is a school that was founded partially to propagate the Christian faith.

"Administrators at the College of William & Mary, responding to months of harsh criticism from alumni, ordered the immediate return of a cross to the Williamsburg school's historic Wren Chapel yesterday. Alumni angered by the removal of the cross in October threatened to withhold millions of dollars of donations -- including a $12 million gift."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=WilliamAndMary

I asked you to cite an example of God's word being mocked. Can you do this?

[joobz]

I asked you to cite an example of God's word being mocked. Can you do this?
Allow me to be a bit more eacting:

Cite examples of God's word being mocked in public schools.

[fuelair]

I don't see what jesus has to do with the three R's?
DUK woulld/may latch on to that one fast: Redemption, Resurrection, Repentance.:D :D :jaw-dropp

[kmortis]

The IPU is a he! :jaw-dropp


.

After many years of Gender Dysfunction Disorder, he finally went out to Colorado and had the initial consultation. He's undergoing hormone therapy, at the moment, but the surgery is scheduled for 2010. He asks that everyone refer to him as a "he" to help with the transition.

[joobz]

After many years of Gender Dysfunction Disorder, he finally went out to Colorado and had the initial consultation. He's undergoing hormone therapy, at the moment, but the surgery is scheduled for 2010. He asks that everyone refer to him as a "he" to help with the transition.
In that case, we must amend the creed:
there is no corn but Unicorn,
and Quaker is his Oatmeal.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school. And remember this is a school that was founded partially to propagate the Christian faith.

"Administrators at the College of William & Mary, responding to months of harsh criticism from alumni, ordered the immediate return of a cross to the Williamsburg school's historic Wren Chapel yesterday. Alumni angered by the removal of the cross in October threatened to withhold millions of dollars of donations -- including a $12 million gift."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ke...WilliamAndMary



I asked you to cite an example of God's word being mocked. Can you do this?


"Mirecki {professor of religious studies at Kansas University} recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_hospitalized_after_beating/?breaking

[thaiboxerken]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.

[JoeEllison]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.

No, we're supposed to treat Biblical superstition differently from other superstitions, because it is the majority superstition. No good reason, but then again if reason were involved the Bible would be in the fiction section of the library.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by DOC
Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school. And remember this is a school that was founded partially to propagate the Christian faith.

"Administrators at the College of William & Mary, responding to months of harsh criticism from alumni, ordered the immediate return of a cross to the Williamsburg school's historic Wren Chapel yesterday. Alumni angered by the removal of the cross in October threatened to withhold millions of dollars of donations -- including a $12 million gift."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ke...WilliamAndMary






"Mirecki {professor of religious studies at Kansas University} recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_hospitalized_after_beating/?breaking

And then some hate-filled anti-American Christians assaulted him... interesting, the detail you leave out. Of course, you probably approve of the assault. your link doesn't say what you claim it does... lying again?

[Cleon]

Claim by Kennedy et al, as cited by DOC:

Today, for the most part, God's Word is mocked in the very schools that were founded by the sweat of Christians".

Evidence cited:

Originally Posted by DOC
Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school. And remember this is a school that was founded partially to propagate the Christian faith.

Problem:

Removal of a religious icon is not "mocking God's word" by any reasonable definition.

Therefore, this is not evidence of the claim presented.


Further evidence cited by DOC:


"Mirecki {professor of religious studies at Kansas University} recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."Problem #1: Mocking fundamentalists is not "mocking God's word." Neither is teaching "Intelligent Design" as mythology. (It sure as hell isn't science.)

Problem #2: There is no evidence that Kansas University was founded as a Christian institution (http://www.kshs.org/publicat/khq/1966/66_1_griffin.htm).

Therefore, this is not evidence of the claim presented.

[DOC]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

[Garrette]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.So, then, you don't even know what "Intelligent Design" is.

Not surprising.

[brodski]

And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

Which nation has that as their national anthem? What is the tune? What are the lyrics? Which god?

[JoeEllison]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

Let's see... you don't know what "mockery" means". You don't know what the word "anthem" means. You don't know what "intelligent design" is. You obviously don't know what "honesty" means.

[Blindwatcher]

From answers.com:
my·thol·o·gy (mĭ-thŏl'ə-jē)
n., pl. -gies.

1 (a) A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

myth (mĭth)
n.

1 (a) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.


Seems to fit intelligent design fairly well regardless of who spouts it.

[JoeEllison]

From answers.com:
my·thol·o·gy (mĭ-thŏl'ə-jē)
n., pl. -gies.

1 (a) A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

myth (mĭth)
n.

1 (a) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.


Seems to fit fairly well regarless of who spouts it.But, hey, we're supposed to pretend that one sect's mythology is real... not for any reason except they can find famous people who also believed it.

[bokonon]

Which nation has that as their national anthem? What is the tune?
I may not know the tune, but I can hum it when I hear it.

[Cleon]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

Wrong. From start to finish.

[thaiboxerken]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

Even IF what you said was true, it doesn't matter. Intelligent Design is still mythology. No matter how many people believe a myth, it still remains a myth.

[DOC]

There is no evidence that Kansas University was founded as a Christian institution[/URL].

Here is a little info about a Mr Amos Lawrence who was a major donor for the start up of Kansas University in "Lawrence" Kansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Kansas

"Lawrence also contributed large sums of money to Harvard {founded by donations of Reverand John Harvard} and the Episcopal Theological School (now Episcopal Divinity School), in Cambridge, Massachusetts...

Amos Adams Lawrence is credited with founding an Episcopalian dynasty in Boston, Massachusetts, which prompted many Boston Brahmins to convert from Unitarianism.

Amos Adams Lawrence's son, William Lawrence, took an even more avid interest in the Episcopalian church, and became the long-time bishop of Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Adams_Lawrence


It can certainly be said that the start up of Kansas University benefited greatly from a man with very strong Christian beliefs. I wonder what he would think about one of its professors mocking fundamentalists by talking about their fat faces and slapping.

[JoeEllison]

It can certainly be said that the start up of Kansas University benefited greatly from a man with very strong Christian beliefs. I wonder what he would think about one of its professors mocking fundamentalists by talking about their fat faces and slapping.
Who cares? On what delusional planet does any of that matter?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm with Joe on this one. It doesn't matter what the founder thinks. The reality is that Intelligent Design is mythology and slapping fundies in the face with that fact is a good thing.

[DOC]

Even IF what you said was true, it doesn't matter. Intelligent Design is still mythology. No matter how many people believe a myth, it still remains a myth.

Well then you know something that all 43 US presidents don't know.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Oh great, another steaming pile of christo-fascist bull ala DOC..

[thaiboxerken]

Well then you know something that all 43 US presidents don't know.

Yes, and your appeal to popularity and false authority is still a fallacy. Intelligent Design is mythology, the literal interpretation of Genesis can be shown to be scientifically absurd. ID is a giant appeal to ignorance and their attempt to disprove evolution is without any scientific merit at all.

[Cleon]

Here is a little info about a Mr Amos Lawrence who was a major donor for the start up of Kansas University in "Lawrence" Kansas.

Completely and totally irrelevant.

[JoeEllison]

Well then you know something that all 43 US presidents don't know.

Yeah, so what? The mistake you're making has a name: appeal to authority fallacy. It doesn't matter who believes something, if it is wrong then they are wrong. Guess what? I know something that all 43 presidents don't know. Big deal. I know more on some subjects than 99.999999 percent of all the people who have ever lived... and that doesn't mean too much either.

[Garrette]

Actually, I call BS on DOC's claim that all 43 presidents are IDers.

Prove it, DOC. Start with William Jefferson Clinton.

[JoeEllison]

Actually, I call BS on DOC's claim that all 43 presidents are IDers.

Prove it, DOC. Start with William Jefferson Clinton.
Thanks... he posts so many lies, it can be hard to catch them all.

[Cleon]

Actually, I call BS on DOC's claim that all 43 presidents are IDers.

Prove it, DOC. Start with William Jefferson Clinton.

For that matter, I know there is a very religious former President, a Southern Baptist who to this day teaches Bible Study at his local church, who has been very outspoken in his condemnation of Intelligent Design "theory."

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe those guys aren't "real" presidents, since they don't believe ID to be fact.

[kmortis]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.

3 billion people believe in ID? Every president mentioned ID in their innaugrals? Interesting.



I thought that ID wasn't even INVENTED until circa 2000. Geo. Washington was a more impressive man than I gave him credit for then, what being able to precognate that concept by almost three hundred years. Was it in code then? I guess that Lincoln was refering to Intelligent Design when he said "On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. "? As did Jefferson in this passage: "but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good.". Fascinating.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Let's see... you don't know what "mockery" means". You don't know what the word "anthem" means. You don't know what "intelligent design" is. You obviously don't know what "honesty" means.

This is a guy who can't tell the difference between a "thread" and a "forum."

What do you expect?

[Garrette]

For that matter, I know there is a very religious former President, a Southern Baptist who to this day teaches Bible Study at his local church, who has been very outspoken in his condemnation of Intelligent Design "theory."Interesting. I suspected it of Carter, but I didn't know enough to be certain.

[JoeEllison]

This is a guy who can't tell the difference between a "thread" and a "forum."

What do you expect?
Oh, that's exactly what I expect from someone with a fixation on that scumbag Liar for Jesus, D. James Kennedy. Anyone who would worship that piece of lying crap can't be expected to do much different.

[kmortis]

Why does Jesus get angry at lepers?

[JoeEllison]

Why does Jesus get angry at lepers?

Because they keep dropping their fingers in his Kool-Aid?

[kmortis]

Because they keep dropping their fingers in his Kool-Aid?

Seriously. Mark 1:40-41 is translated in some manuscripts:
Mar 1:40 A man with leprosy came and knelt in front of Jesus, begging to be healed. "If you want to, you can make me well again," he said.
Mar 1:41 Moved with anger Jesus touched him. "I want to," he said. "Be healed!"

I figure why should DOC be the only one throwing out random tidbits of historical "information".

[Mark A. Siefert]

Oh, that's exactly what I expect from someone with a fixation on that scumbag Liar for Jesus, D. James Kennedy. Anyone who would worship that piece of lying crap can't be expected to do much different.

Well, now that Kennedy is a corpse, he thinks he can beat him for all that it's worth.

:deadhorse

[Mark A. Siefert]

Actually, I call BS on DOC's claim that all 43 presidents are IDers.

Prove it, DOC. Start with William Jefferson Clinton.

Well, a quick Google search yields nothing...

For that matter, I know there is a very religious former President, a Southern Baptist who to this day teaches Bible Study at his local church, who has been very outspoken in his condemnation of Intelligent Design "theory."

Probably one of the few things me and Ol' Goofy Tooth would agree on.

Having once been a right-wing Christian myself, I can tell you with some authority that DOC probably only counts Republican presidents on his list.

[Garrette]

Well, a quick Google search yields nothing...Can't be. If it ain't on Google it don't exist...


Having once been a right-wing Christian myself, I can tell you with some authority that DOC probably only counts Republican presidents on his list.Except that DOC is the one who threw out the number 43.

But I get your point.

[joobz]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.
Are you equating "god's word" with intelligent design? You do understand that ID does not require god, but simply some creator which could also have been an alien species. In fact, the premise of ID is purely mythology since it is a non-supported just-so story used to explain our existence. There is no testable hypothesis or even a potentially testable hypothesis and therefore cannot be considered science.

Or are you confusing your statements with creationism, which is offered as a contrary hypthesis to evolution? This would be even funnier, because the catholic church has traditionally (since 1950) clearly held to the idea that evolution is a scientific fact.
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM)) Are you claiming that the Pope isn't christian? that would be very very funny.

However, it does seem that the current Pope has backpedaled from JPII's view. This, in itself, is quite amusing. Since Catholic dogma states that the Pope's word is the word of the lord, does that mean that god agreed evolution was real, but then now says evolution isn't real? Why would an omniscient being change his mind on what is true?

You see, this kind of logic problems is what happens when faith is allowed to creep into classes where it doesn't belong. This is the strength of the secular education system, and the reason why most educational systems have secularized their teachings.

[Garrette]

Since Catholic dogma states that the Pope's word is the word of the lord, To be fair to DOC, this is not entirely true. Infallibility only applies when speaking to theological doctrine.

[Ducky]

So this is where DOC has run to to avoid answerwing for his bollocks in the Jefferson thread.

Oh well. Have fun guys.

[joobz]

To be fair to DOC, this is not entirely true. Infallibility only applies when speaking to theological doctrine.
But if the church accepts a scientific theory as correct, but later rescends it, How can that not be considered a change in theological doctrine? Or is it considered that theological doctrine is allowed to change over time without a risk to infallibility?

Or is it one of those games where, when the church called slavery moral, it was indeed moral in the eyes of god. But now that the church views slavery as moral, it is indeed immoral in the eyes of god?

-this would be a very silly point to hold to.

[thaiboxerken]

But if the church accepts a scientific theory as correct, but later rescends it, How can that not be considered a change in theological doctrine? Or is it considered that theological doctrine is allowed to change over time without a risk to infallibility?

Or is it one of those games where, when the church called slavery moral, it was indeed moral in the eyes of god. But now that the church views slavery as moral, it is indeed immoral in the eyes of god?

-this would be a very silly point to hold to.

It's very simple, if you're a believer. The Pope's words are theological doctrine, until they aren't, thus he's infallible when the christian god is speaking through him. For example, JPII obviously didn't speak for god if the next Pope can retract the statement.

[Cactus Wren]

Others have put this question forward, but I'm going to repeat it for clarity.

I'm nesting the quotes (By hand. PH34R mah mad BBCode skillz), to make the strand of discussion absolutely unmistakable:

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.Even IF what you said was true, it doesn't matter. Intelligent Design is still mythology. No matter how many people believe a myth, it still remains a myth.Well then you know something that all 43 US presidents don't know.

Please feel free to point to any ONE Presidential inaugural address in which the incoming President has claimed to be an adherent of "intelligent design".

For that matter, please feel free to point to any Presidential inaugural address that has MENTIONED "intelligent design".

[strathmeyer]

"Mirecki {professor of religious studies at Kansas University} recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_hospitalized_after_beating/?breaking

Wow, just wow, DOC. Did you even read this article? It's about a bunch of Christians who beat a man. Then you can read the article comments where people keep saying "let's way until all the facts are in" because they think he faked his own beating.

Your stupidity is inspiring.

[kmortis]

Did you know that the 80's Rock group Styx did a version of the "Halleluija Chorus" from Handel's Messiah? I guees that makes them a Christian Rock band, huh?

[Ducky]

Did you know that the 80's Rock group Styx did a version of the "Halleluija Chorus" from Handel's Messiah? I guees that makes them a Christian Rock band, huh?

Xian or not, they just sucked.

Domo Origato, Styx. Without you, we would have no measure by which to know the bottom of the "suck scale."

[joobz]

Xian or not, they just sucked.

Domo Origato, Styx. Without you, we would have no measure by which to know the bottom of the "suck scale."
I'm sorry, but the official international unit measure of suck is the 'jar of clay'.

[Ducky]

Ohhh, good point.

We may have an official tie of suckage, requiring a suck off.

perhaps we start a new thread in humor or entertainment about this...

[kmortis]

Ohhh, good point.

We may have an official tie of suckage, requiring a suck off.

perhaps we start a new thread in humor or entertainment about this...

Now now, I'll agree that their later stuff was very...pop. But some of their earlier albums were quite good. Hell, the last part of Krakatoa was used by Lucas as inspiration for his THX "Blue Note".

Kilroy was here was a low point. Not one they ever arose from, mind you.

Still, they're not Milli Vanilli. At least JY played his own guitar.

[gypsey]

JoeEllison
And slaughter some Native Americans... DOC approved of that too.
DOC
If your going to say I approved of the slaughter of Native Americans, then your going to have to say you approved of the slaughter of up to 50,000 Native Americans a year by the Aztecs.

:yikes:
you have some proof of this ??? the aztecs weren't natives to the americas??
where did they imigrate from and when??????
i don't know what history you are reading but the aztecs never killed any of my people nor any of the tribes we were associated with
so who exactly were the aztecs killing 50,000 a year of ??

oh and the link is still available for you any time
http://www.dickshovel.com/ind.html

or this one

http://www.tolatsga.org/Compacts.html#Cherokee1

[gypsey]

doc
just for you since you like history so much here is another link

i don't believe you will ever look at these links much less read them and i guess this is a derail but you brought the subject up and have now ignored the answer through 3 different threads all i can do is keep posting in the hopes that you will at least drop some of your nonsense
and just because i know you won't follow the link heres a short excerpt on just one of the massacres committed by good christain soldiers

"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.
So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization."

According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.

[kmortis]

doc
just for you since you like history so much here is another link

i don't believe you will ever look at these links much less read them and i guess this is a derail but you brought the subject up and have now ignored the answer through 3 different threads all i can do is keep posting in the hopes that you will at least drop some of your nonsense
and just because i know you won't follow the link heres a short excerpt on just one of the massacres committed by good christain soldiers

gypsey,
Just think how depraved the Natives would have been if Jesus was never born. They would never have known what it felt like to be treated so. They would probably still be stuck in pre-industrial agrarian societies.

But they wouldn't have the small pox immunity that they do now. So they got THAT going for them. Wasn't that nice of the Civilizing Christians to provide that? Small pox was deadly, now it's a historical curiosity that the Christians made your ancestors immune to.

And buffalo. If it weren't for the Christians, the herds would have gotten too big and starved themselves to death. The Christians came by and killed them almost all off, thereby saving them from the deprivation of starvation. Wasn't that kindly?

That Jesus, what a good guy.

[gypsey]

kmortis

gypsey,
Just think how depraved the Natives would have been if Jesus was never born. They would never have known what it felt like to be treated so. They would probably still be stuck in pre-industrial agrarian societies.

But they wouldn't have the small pox immunity that they do now. So they got THAT going for them. Wasn't that nice of the Civilizing Christians to provide that? Small pox was deadly, now it's a historical curiosity that the Christians made your ancestors immune to.

And buffalo. If it weren't for the Christians, the herds would have gotten too big and starved themselves to death. The Christians came by and killed them almost all off, thereby saving them from the deprivation of starvation. Wasn't that kindly?

That Jesus, what a good guy.

:dl: :bigclap
My Hero :cool:

i'm not usually as persistant about this as i am also proud of all of my heritage (Irish, Scottish and alot more) but docs unrelenting ignorance just pushed all the buttons:D

[fuelair]

Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.


You have not caught on yet to the idea that the number of people believing something has no relevance to the truth. And you have never heard of giving sops to the voting idiots (that, of course, does not refer to people capable of thought who vote - mostly just to the fundies.)

I thought " The Star Spangled Banner " was our national anthem. Did those 3 billion doofusses vote us a new one and I missed it?

[Doc Daneeka]

Not according to 3 billion people

If we assume that the figure you gave is correct, wouldn't that mean that there are in fact MORE people who disbelieve it than who believe it? An argument from popularity makes little sense to begin with, but it makes even less sense when the argument cited is actually a minority viewpoint.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.


You have not caught on yet to the idea that the number of people believing something has no relevance to the truth. And you have never heard of giving sops to the voting idiots (that, of course, does not refer to people capable of thought who vote - mostly just to the fundies.)

I thought " The Star Spangled Banner " was our national anthem. Did those 3 billion doofusses vote us a new one and I missed it?


Oh, did I say national anthem. As I said many times before in these threads "In God We Trust" is the National Motto of the US -- not its national anthem.

And as far as the number of people who believe in God or the Great Spirit I think what is significantly important is the fact that the great majority of human cultures in the history of the world have come to their beliefs in a Deity, deities or a Great Spirit "independently" of each other.

[DOC]

If we assume that the figure you gave is correct, wouldn't that mean that there are in fact MORE people who disbelieve it than who believe it? An argument from popularity makes little sense to begin with, but it makes even less sense when the argument cited is actually a minority viewpoint.

Actually I was being quite conservative concerning the number of people who believe in God. I gave Christians 2 billion and Islam 1 billion although its probably higher. I didn't include all the Jews and tribal people who believe in God or a Great Spirit. I'm not an expert on all the Asian religions but many of them probably believe in a single primary deity.

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.

[kmortis]

Actually I was being quite conservative concerning the number of people who believe in God. I gave Christians 2 billion and Islam 1 billion although its probably higher. I didn't include all the Jews and tribal people who believe in God or a Great Spirit. I'm not an expert on all the Asian religions but many of them probably believe in a single primary deity.

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.

Really? And which Hindu god is the "single primary deity"? Brahama? Shiva? Kali? Vishnu? Ganesh?

Or Taoism?

Or Shinto?

Or Theistic Buddhism?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Do you understand that there's a cultural part of religion? That it acts as a marker which is helpful in forming tribalism? Because it's universal doesn't add validity to the existance of a deity, just that religion was a useful meme to burgeoning tribal nations. I'm not indicating, BTW, that there was some sort of cynical-Machiavellian intent, I fully admit that TPTB who were forming the tribes fully believed in the existance of a spiritual realm. That, however, doens't add validity to its existance either, just that it was a popular thought. History is rife with popular thoughts that later turned out to be false.

Why the hell am I bothering with you? You're just going to cherry-pick this and go off on some random tangent.

<sigh>

[joobz]

Actually I was being quite conservative concerning the number of people who believe in God. I gave Christians 2 billion and Islam 1 billion although its probably higher. I didn't include all the Jews and tribal people who believe in God or a Great Spirit. I'm not an expert on all the Asian religions but many of them probably believe in a single primary deity. are you really claiming that Muslim and christian and all other monotheist religions are praying to the same god? if you believe this, I just suggest you go on and convince all christians to become muslims. As you say, It's equivilent. it'd save a lot of hassle.

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.So? If you admit that popularity doesn't mean truth, then you must also admit that presenting such numbers is meaningless. 1000+ years ago, most people didn't believe in bacteria, DNA, molecules, etc. did that make thier combined view correct?

In the middle ages, people believed that the kings gained their rule by devine right from god... Was that true as well? 200 Years ago, many people still believed slavery was acceptable...Were they right?

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, did I say national anthem. As I said many times before in these threads "In God We Trust" is the National Motto of the US -- not its national anthem.

Does "In God We Trust" mean "we're all Creationists"?!


And as far as the number of people who believe in God or the Great Spirit I think what is significantly important is the fact that the great majority of human cultures in the history of the world have come to their beliefs in a Deity, deities or a Great Spirit "independently" of each other.

That's interesting, but they all seem to have beliefs in different gods. You are still appealing to popular belief. Just because most people in the world hold a superstitious belief doesn't mean it's any less superstitious.

[Biscuit]

As long as we don't teach women I am in.

And so long as women can't vote either.

[Biscuit]

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.

I would actually say this is evidence that they are all in fact mistaken. How do account for the thousands of different gods that man kind has believed in? From religions where every aspect of nature has its own representative in the halls of the gods to christianity and all of its many off shoots and reinventions. Doesn't the 'existance' of all these variations on god/gods really speak to the fact that they are probably all just made up in order to help a society lacking in scientific reasoning describe the world around them, why they are there, and where they go when they die?

Man kind is discovering new dieties all the time, just ask his noodly goodness
http://venganza.org/

[joobz]

I would actually say this is evidence that they are all in fact mistaken. How do account for the thousands of different gods that man kind has believed in? From religions where every aspect of nature has its own representative in the halls of the gods to christianity and all of its many off shoots and reinventions. Doesn't the 'existance' of all these variations on god/gods really speak to the fact that they are probably all just made up in order to help a society lacking in scientific reasoning describe the world around them, why they are there, and where they go when they die?

Man kind is discovering new dieties all the time, just ask his noodly goodness
http://venganza.org/
Well, the kind of reconciliation you can make to explain your point is the unitarian universalism version. It's the view (from what I can gather), that no one version is the "truth" but a simply an extension of it. As such, they are all equal and to worship one is to worship the same "thing". This relegates god to effectively diest status level status.

Whether DOC realizes it or not, his lumping of all versions of "god" into one god-like-thing of worship as an argument against atheism has only two (perhaps 3) logical results which go against christian philosophy.

A person who would lump all religions as equal in terms of belief in god does so on one of three possible premises:

1.) That all monotheists worship the same god. This is embracing a unitarian view. That he views all religions as equal, and therefore lumpable. (This effectively negates his christianity, since christ said he is the only way).
or
2.) That all monotheists worship a single god, but not the same god. This would mean that he recognizes the existence of other gods and considers their worship superior to no worship at all. Such a view would be a violation of No gods before god.
or
3.) That there is no other god but the christian god and that his argument was made in bad faith. That he only made the argument to demean, belittle, or demonstrate inferiority of agnostics/atheists and does not actually believe that any of the other religions are meaningful. This view would simply mean that he is a self serving hipocrite not above making dishonest arguments to support his own view.

[Biscuit]

Well put.

I would also add that someone who does lump all gods ever worshiped into one diest entity would also have to believe that entity was rather uninterested in the affairs of man. As every society has seen its victories and defeats, as he has been worshipped as a peaceful god and a vengeful god with similiar results across the centuries. Perhaps DOC truly is a diest and believes in a higher power that is to busy to meddle with the affairs of man or be concerned over how much we grovel to him!

[Checkmite]

Are you equating "god's word" with intelligent design? You do understand that ID does not require god, but simply some creator which could also have been an alien species. In fact, the premise of ID is purely mythology since it is a non-supported just-so story used to explain our existence. There is no testable hypothesis or even a potentially testable hypothesis and therefore cannot be considered science.


I've got to make a point here. In the most technical sense, if you take the barest, most minimalized principle of ID, then yes you're right - it does not require a God necessarily. However, if we're talking ID in its real-world state (i.e., ID as "that set of ideas which is being suggested as a school cirriculum"), then ID is indistinguishable from Biblical literalism, and thus does require the Biblical literalist conception of God.

[Doc Daneeka]

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.

You rather obviously included those figures as part of your argument, which is the definition of an argument from popularity. I'm not saying that you believe that popularity equal truth. You do however appear to have argued that numbers should be taken into account. Either that or you presented them just for the sake of trivia.

If so, that's rather...um...weird.

[kmortis]

You rather obviously included those figures as part of your argument, which is the definition of an argument from popularity. I'm not saying that you believe that popularity equal truth. You do however appear to have argued that numbers should be taken into account. Either that or you presented them just for the sake of trivia.

If so, that's rather...um...weird.

Well, that's our DOC.

Um, by that I'm not refering to you, Doc. I'm refering to DOC.


You might be weird, but, as far as I can tell, in a good way.


I mean, you have GWB dressed as a clown as your avatar. I like clowns, as can be seen.

um...so, anyway. <coughs to cover the long pregnant pause> uh, how about those Bears, huh?

[Garrette]

uh, how about those Bears, huh?Looking as they should, crushed by the Cowboys. Is it premature to vote Romo as the greatest quarterback ever to have played the game? Huh? Nah. Didn't think so.

[Doc Daneeka]

I never got football. It's the American equivalent to cricket, in that nothing happens for long periods of time. Then some people run for a few seconds, and everybody cheers. Then nothing happens for a while.

American football just isn't for me, sigh.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.


I would actually say this is evidence that they are all in fact mistaken.


I don't believe that this is a logical statement. It seems to me that this is your logic

a) There have been many Beliefs in different gods.

b) Since there have been been many different beliefs in different gods then they all can't be right.

c) Since they all can't be right -- then none of them can be right.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by DOC

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.





I don't believe that this is a logical statement. It seems to me that this is your logic

a) There have been many Beliefs in different gods.

b) Since there have been been many different beliefs in different gods then they all can't be right.

c) Since they all can't be right -- then none of them can be right.
Doubtful. I'm sure Biscuit will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine that they're saying that:

a) There have been many Beliefs in different gods.

b) There has been no evidence for any of the gods.

c) Therefore, there are no gods.

I am as much an aThorist as I am an aYHVHist. As the old saw goes, we're both atheistic, I just believe in one less god than you do.

[Doc Daneeka]

Originally Posted by DOC

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.


If you don't think that the popularity of an idea has any bearing on its veracity, then why do you keep bringing that up?


I don't believe that this is a logical statement. It seems to me that this is your logic

a) There have been many Beliefs in different gods.

b) Since there have been been many different beliefs in different gods then they all can't be right.

c) Since they all can't be right -- then none of them can be right.

Well, look at it this way. If there is a god, it presumably has a certain set of characteristics. It prefers this or that, or does not have a preference. It created the universe in this particular way, or did not. It likes to be worshipped in this particular way, or it does not. Morality to god is exactly as written in this book, or it is not.

Given that there are a great number of religions and that they differ in the details, at most one of them can be entirely correct. As we have no idea which one this might be, it's logical to provisionally consider any given one to be wrong. Even if you believe in god, that would make good sense. It's one of the routes to Deism, actually.

Does it logically follow that there is no god? Not really. It does however indicate that if there is a god, one can learn nothing whatsoever about that god by studying the beliefs of the various religions. It's more parsimonious to just consider god a cultural construct.

Of course, there could be other evidence for the existence of god. I merely note that without such evidence, the huge mess of conflicting religions indicate otherwise.

[joobz]

I don't believe that this is a logical statement. It seems to me that this is your logic

a) There have been many Beliefs in different gods.

b) Since there have been been many different beliefs in different gods then they all can't be right.

c) Since they all can't be right -- then none of them can be right.

That's not at all the position.
Please address my assessment of your position. WHich premise do you subscribe to?

1.) That all monotheists worship the same god. This is embracing a unitarian view. That he views all religions as equal, and therefore lumpable. (This effectively negates his christianity, since christ said he is the only way).
or
2.) That all monotheists worship a single god, but not the same god. This would mean that he recognizes the existence of other gods and considers their worship superior to no worship at all. Such a view would be a violation of No gods before god.
or
3.) That there is no other god but the christian god and that his argument was made in bad faith. That he only made the argument to demean, belittle, or demonstrate inferiority of agnostics/atheists and does not actually believe that any of the other religions are meaningful. This view would simply mean that he is a self serving hipocrite not above making dishonest arguments to support his own view.

[bokonon]

What does it say about a person when he is irritated about learning some history about his own country.

And what does it say about the direction a country is going when a considerable number of its citizens show displeasure at threads that simply discuss their country's history.
I'm always happy to learn a little history. What's irritating about your posts is that the history is often incorrect, and always incidental to your agenda of making secular classrooms and secular government a tool for promoting Christian propaganda.

[bokonon]

Here is an example where the college of William and Mary's president removed a cross from the very chapel Jefferson said prayers in when he was a student at the school.
Whoa, that's some serious mockery there. That is mockery of the first water. That is extra virgin cold press mockery. That's mockery turned up to 11. They don't make mockery like that any more.

[bokonon]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.Not according to 3 billion people and not according to every US president (that is unless they were lying in their inaugural addresses). And for that matter not according to any country that has "In God We Trust" as their national anthem.
Lie #1: Three billion people think that "teaching ID is mythology" is a mockery of God's word.

Lie #2: Every US President thought (or thinks) that "teaching ID is mythology" is a mockery of God's word.

Lie #3: Every US President expressed in his inaugural address that "teaching ID is mythology" is a mockery of God's word.

A mere mistake: "In God We Trust" is the national anthem of the United States.

Lie #4: A country's choice of the phrase "In God We Trust" for a national motto means the country endorses the idea that "teaching ID is mythology" is a mockery of God's word.

As always, the real agenda of the liars for Jesus is to convert secular classrooms and secular government into a mouthpiece for Christian evangelism. The irony here is that, by his lies, DOC makes a mockery of God's word.

[bokonon]

And as far as the number of people who believe in God or the Great Spirit I think what is significantly important is the fact that the great majority of human cultures in the history of the world have come to their beliefs in a Deity, deities or a Great Spirit "independently" of each other.
They also came to their beliefs in fairies, leprechauns, wood spirits, and river gods independently of each other. They'll outgrow their beliefs in gods too. Give them time. As you've correctly observed, when people become educated, one of the first things that happens is that they begin to ask embarrassing questions about dust-covered dogma.

[bokonon]

How is teaching intelligent design is mythology a mockery of "god's word?" After all, it really is mythology.
Not according to 3 billion people...

Actually I was being quite conservative concerning the number of people who believe in God. I gave Christians 2 billion and Islam 1 billion although its probably higher. I didn't include all the Jews and tribal people who believe in God or a Great Spirit. I'm not an expert on all the Asian religions but many of them probably believe in a single primary deity.
The problem here is that your original assertion was that 3 billion people believe that teaching intelligent design as mythology is a mockery of God's word. Even if you're correct about the number of people who believe in God, this is moving the goal posts, since belief in God is not the equivalent of belief in ID. In addition, it is possible to believe in ID without believing that teaching it as myth is mocking God's word. Piling one fallacy on top of another doesn't add truth.

[Safe-Keeper]

And according to quite a few people in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's not a myth that sleeping with a virgin cures you of AIDS. I suppose sex ed class should stop teaching this, too. After all, it makes a mockery of what these innocuous people believe, and who are we to do that?

Face it, DOC, it does not matter how many people believe a myth to be true. A falsehood believed by many is still a myth. As a matter of fact, when I think about it, it's only when a lot of people believe something that it is a myth, since the definition of 'myth' is something like 'a falsehood believed by many to be true'.

I never said popularity meant truth. But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.Even if this was true, and religion was not created before all these different tribes split up and populated every corner of the world, it doesn't really matter as the independent results aren't scientific or logical. A great many people also came to the independent conclusion that the Earth was flat. Weren't much right, were they?

[Doc Daneeka]

It is quite fascinating to see someone use the argument from popularity while insisting that that's not what is going on.

[DOC]

Quote from DOC

But as I said before it would seem that the great majority of cultures in the history of the world have come to a belief in a deity, deities, or Great Spirit independently of each other.




Even if this was true, and religion was not created before all these different tribes split up and populated every corner of the world, it doesn't really matter as the independent results aren't scientific or logical. A great many people also came to the independent conclusion that the Earth was flat.?


Yea, but they could "see" the earth looked flat. All those cultures couldn't see God. Maybe its an innate knowledge God gives to humanity. Kind of like the innate ability of a homing pidgeon to find its way home over hundreds of miles thru unknown territory.

[verusl@centurytel.ne]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design, once read will clear the smog from the minds of the most stubborn and prone to believe ID to be mythology...and while it does not argue for the Christian ethic, it does rather demolish the model for evolution. If one is unafraid of the truth and can face the consequences of his stinking thinking (like I am continuing even today) then first ponder this: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Once you've absorbed this idea and fully have digested it to the point of assimilation, then you might be ready to begin a journey in the reading of the referenced book. It is not so weighty as to stagger a 1st class intellect, so no one need be overly excited...REMEMBER...DON'T GET EXCITED. There are plenty of helps once the "light" begins to seep in and understanding becomes clear. Take small steps then and enjoy.

[Garrette]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design, once read will clear the smog from the minds of the most stubborn and prone to believe ID to be mythology...Yes. It should remove any lingering doubt that there is science or fact behind his claims.


and while it does not argue for the Christian ethic,Not a Christian ethic, no, but it certainly implies a Christian god while trying very hard not to seem like it. That implication is, in fact, its entire purpose.


it does rather demolish the model for evolution.Not in the slightest. If you disagree, please try--as so many others before you have tried--to present the claims of Behe that you think do this. It's not the flagellum. It's not the eye.


If one is unafraid of the truth and can face the consequences of his stinking thinking (like I am continuing even today)Excellent. So if your evidence is shown to be lacking you will abandon your position? I will.


then first ponder this: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt prior to investigation."Ah, yes. Herbert Spencer. The man who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."

The irony is that you apply it to the wrong crowd. The evolution supporters here are the ones who have done the investigation. Investigation of the evidence leading inevitably to the conclusion that evolution is real and evidence of the claims of the ID crowd. The contempt for ID comes after those investigations. I will wager you have not seriously investigated evolution. If you claim you have, then please present what you think are its weaknesses and ID's strengths.


Once you've absorbed this idea and fully have digested it to the point of assimilation, then you might be ready to begin a journey in the reading of the referenced book.You didn't reference a book. You mentioned a topic and it's number one proponent. Behe has written more than one. Tell me, please, which books of his have you actually read?


It is not so weighty as to stagger a 1st class intellect,Actually, it does stagger a 1st class intellect, but certainly not because it is weighty.


There are plenty of helps once the "light" begins to seep in and understanding becomes clear. Take small steps then and enjoy.How sweet. Thank goodness you are here to lead us to salvation.

[Hawk one]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design, once read will clear the smog from the minds of the most stubborn and prone to believe ID to be mythology...and while it does not argue for the Christian ethic, it does rather demolish the model for evolution. If one is unafraid of the truth and can face the consequences of his stinking thinking (like I am continuing even today) then first ponder this: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Once you've absorbed this idea and fully have digested it to the point of assimilation, then you might be ready to begin a journey in the reading of the referenced book. It is not so weighty as to stagger a 1st class intellect, so no one need be overly excited...REMEMBER...DON'T GET EXCITED. There are plenty of helps once the "light" begins to seep in and understanding becomes clear. Take small steps then and enjoy.

Actually, many of us have in fact read the book, and it mainly is a longwinded way to present an arugment from incredulity. Which is the last place any scientific hypothesis should be arguing from. (let alone a scientific theory, which ID isn't, by the way. Heck, it's still not a scientific hypothesis) Besides, every time Behe has "found" something he believes to be irreducibly complex, real scientists have studied it and in short order found how that could in fact have evolved. Often more than one possible solution as well.

And that principle you're spouting is definitely applying to the creationist crowd more than anyone. Ever since "On the origin of species" was released, the creationists have continued to argue against evolution, usually without ever reading what it is this scientific theory actually says. Instead, they build up strawmen that they can then "demolish" with their full contempt, oblivious of the actual facts. And of course, they're not at all afraid to downright lie if that's what it takes.

But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs, right?

[joobz]

Maybe its an innate knowledge God gives to humanity. Kind of like the innate ability of a homing pidgeon to find its way home over hundreds of miles thru unknown territory.

Or perhaps it's an outdated instinctual aspect that no longer serves any evolutionary advantage, like fear of the dark, fear of loud noises,...

[Doc Daneeka]

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design, once read will clear the smog from the minds of the most stubborn and prone to believe ID to be mythology...and while it does not argue for the Christian ethic, it does rather demolish the model for evolution.

The problem with Behe's views is that they require as a minimum that one refuses to read the relevant journals or to keep up with the biological sciences in general. So long as you refuse to read up on current research, he makes a bit of sense.

Of course, his arguments rely entirely upon the ignorance of his readership and the fact that they aren't likely to keep up to date. This is sad, and is a terrible commentary on his supporters.

[Kopji]

Sept 25, 2007 - Migrating birds, it seems, can "see" the Earth's magnetic field which they use as a compass to guide them around the globe.

Specialized neurons in the eye, sensitive to magnetic direction, have been shown for the first time to connect via a specific brain pathway to an area in the forebrain of birds responsible for vision, German researchers said on Wednesday

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=migrating-birds-may-see-e&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

Or perhaps we might consider that a bird's eye evolved from a more primitive sightless organ.

[DOC]

Sept 25, 2007 - Migrating birds, it seems, can "see" the Earth's magnetic field which they use as a compass to guide them around the globe.

Specialized neurons in the eye, sensitive to magnetic direction, have been shown for the first time to connect via a specific brain pathway to an area in the forebrain of birds responsible for vision, German researchers said on Wednesday

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...modsrc=reuters



Well then that could explain visions to the skeptics.

If a bird can see a magnetic field with its eyes then why can't certain people see things that others don't. St Paul claims to have seen a light whereas the soldiers with him (on the road to Damascus) didn't see anything but they heard an unknown voice.

The book of Acts Chapter 9 verse 7 NLV version Blue letter Bible

Act 9:2 He requested letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus, asking their cooperation in the arrest of any followers of the Way he found there. He wanted to bring them-both men and women-back to Jerusalem in chains.
Act 9:3 As he was nearing Damascus on this mission, a brilliant light from heaven suddenly beamed down upon him!
Act 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?"
Act 9:5 "Who are you, sir?" Saul asked. And the voice replied, "I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting!
Act 9:6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
Act 9:7 The men with Saul stood speechless with surprise, for they heard the sound of someone's voice, but they saw no one!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=9&version=NLT#7

I know a woman who claims to have seen angels in a church as a child. Her eyes are very sensitive to a certain color also.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well then that could explain visions to the skeptics.

If a bird can see a magnetic field with its eyes then why can't certain people see things that others don't.

If whys were thighs we could enjoy a nice serving of hot wings. They're not though, and did you notice the quotes around see in the article? That means they don't actually see, as in color vision, the way supposed visions are seen.

Nice stretch though.

[Hokulele]

Well then that could explain visions to the skeptics.

If a bird can see a magnetic field with its eyes then why can't certain people see things that others don't. St Paul claims to have seen a light whereas the soldiers with him (on the road to Damascus) didn't see anything but they heard an unknown voice.


Because Paul most likely suffered a temporal lobe seizure (http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm). The soldiers would not have seen anything that only existed in Paul's brain.

[kmortis]

Because Paul most likely suffered a temporal lobe seizure (http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm). The soldiers would not have seen anything that only existed in Paul's brain.

Its unsupported comments like these that hurt you're credability and make it so people cannot take you seriously. If this keeps up, I'll be forced to report this forum to the moderators.

[Hokulele]

:(

[quixotecoyote]

:(

Come on, that was a decent impression.

[drkitten]

If a bird can see a magnetic field with its eyes then why can't certain people see things that others don't.

Hmm.... I don't know. Perhaps because people aren't birds?

If a dog can fetch a stick, then why can't certain potatoes tap-dance?

[kmortis]

If a dog can fetch a stick, then why can't certain potatoes tap-dance?

Oh oh, I know, I know!

Ceci n'est pas un pipe?

[thaiboxerken]

Well then that could explain visions to the skeptics.

If a bird can see a magnetic field with its eyes then why can't certain people see things that others don't.

If an elephant can lift 2000+ lbs with it's nose, why can't certain people?

[kmortis]

If an elephant can lift 2000+ lbs with it's nose, why can't certain people?

Does it have to be with the nose?

[verusl@centurytel.ne]

Well, I am truly amazed at the apparent lack of collective thinking here, the digressions and the skepticism, the master plan to derail and the collective bargaining chip of the uninformed. Herein lies the rub: honest thoughts of honest men all - but we each and all are missing some crucial element which forbids us to see the whole picture; I'll be the first to admit to this and thereby incur further loss as some may see it as whimping out. This is not the case. You have each spoken with your honest toil of the mind doing its best to pace each new argument. Well there is of course the argument that, by scientific definition Darwin never developed any scientific theory at all. He was, self-admittedly, no scientist and had no relative scientific background from which to draw much more than a mere hypothesis. He was a disgruntled playboy who left upon a voyage aboard a ship called the "Beagle" and found port in a remote spot in the world where, by chance he noticed a tremendously diverse terra/fauna environment, and he began to document his findings....later to be published in his "Origin of Species." Now it seems improbably to me that Mr. Darwin's mind evolved in so dramatic a way in so short a time as to empower him to draw any honest scientific conclusions about what he'd seen....but he did observe things and he never evolved the so-called "Theory of Evolution." That, I feel certain was a collaborative effort by some rather forceful men of the age who wanted something new by which to define the world in which we live. On the subject of the "flagellum or the eye" - why not - as there seems to be a great diversity of both, each about as specialized within each of the organisms they seemed to have evolved for, some with greater abilities than others - granted: to me it is precisely this evidence that makes me truly agog with wonder with those who insist these organs or organisms developed on their own within their respective organisms. And yet we have animals who live beneath the oceans that have scarcely any eye or not at all because they simply are not needed in their natural environments. How did a sea creature that lives so deeply in such frigid waters evolve and where precisely did that occur - was it within that primordal stew out there floating about in space? Highly unlikely! No to the naysayers again.. I believe that Behe and his cohorts have hit upon a key to opening doors that eventually will engulf the archaic thinking of all those who oppose him. Of course there are always the skeptics who would rather wrestle down here in the pits with us mere mortals than ever taking on the authors of the works of the ID crowd. I will not cross swords with any of you ladies or gentlemen. You do not have a need to accept my observations; nor should you feel you have a need to make light of honest and intelligent men who gather to get a look at new ways of looking at things.....this I believe is one method by which true scientists gather data for their works.

[quixotecoyote]

Why is it that those who cannot find their ass with both hands always have the same problems finding the enter key?

[wollery]

Well, I am truly amazed at the apparent lack of collective thinking here, the digressions and the skepticism, the master plan to derail and the collective bargaining chip of the uninformed. Herein lies the rub: honest thoughts of honest men all - but we each and all are missing some crucial element which forbids us to see the whole picture; I'll be the first to admit to this and thereby incur further loss as some may see it as whimping out. This is not the case. You have each spoken with your honest toil of the mind doing its best to pace each new argument. Well there is of course the argument that, by scientific definition Darwin never developed any scientific theory at all. He was, self-admittedly, no scientist and had no relative scientific background from which to draw much more than a mere hypothesis. He was a disgruntled playboy who left upon a voyage aboard a ship called the "Beagle" and found port in a remote spot in the world where, by chance he noticed a tremendously diverse terra/fauna environment, and he began to document his findings....later to be published in his "Origin of Species." Now it seems improbably to me that Mr. Darwin's mind evolved in so dramatic a way in so short a time as to empower him to draw any honest scientific conclusions about what he'd seen....but he did observe things and he never evolved the so-called "Theory of Evolution." That, I feel certain was a collaborative effort by some rather forceful men of the age who wanted something new by which to define the world in which we live. On the subject of the "flagellum or the eye" - why not - as there seems to be a great diversity of both, each about as specialized within each of the organisms they seemed to have evolved for, some with greater abilities than others - granted: to me it is precisely this evidence that makes me truly agog with wonder with those who insist these organs or organisms developed on their own within their respective organisms. And yet we have animals who live beneath the oceans that have scarcely any eye or not at all because they simply are not needed in their natural environments. How did a sea creature that lives so deeply in such frigid waters evolve and where precisely did that occur - was it within that primordal stew out there floating about in space? Highly unlikely! No to the naysayers again.. I believe that Behe and his cohorts have hit upon a key to opening doors that eventually will engulf the archaic thinking of all those who oppose him. Of course there are always the skeptics who would rather wrestle down here in the pits with us mere mortals than ever taking on the authors of the works of the ID crowd. I will not cross swords with any of you ladies or gentlemen. You do not have a need to accept my observations; nor should you feel you have a need to make light of honest and intelligent men who gather to get a look at new ways of looking at things.....this I believe is one method by which true scientists gather data for their works. Nope

[Garrette]

Well, I am truly amazed at the apparent lack of collective thinking here, the digressions and the skepticism, the master plan to derail and the collective bargaining chip of the uninformed. Herein lies the rub: honest thoughts of honest men all - but we each and all are missing some crucial element which forbids us to see the whole picture; I'll be the first to admit to this and thereby incur further loss as some may see it as whimping out. This is not the case. You have each spoken with your honest toil of the mind doing its best to pace each new argument. Well there is of course the argument that, by scientific definition Darwin never developed any scientific theory at all. He was, self-admittedly, no scientist and had no relative scientific background from which to draw much more than a mere hypothesis. He was a disgruntled playboy who left upon a voyage aboard a ship called the "Beagle" and found port in a remote spot in the world where, by chance he noticed a tremendously diverse terra/fauna environment, and he began to document his findings....later to be published in his "Origin of Species." Now it seems improbably to me that Mr. Darwin's mind evolved in so dramatic a way in so short a time as to empower him to draw any honest scientific conclusions about what he'd seen....but he did observe things and he never evolved the so-called "Theory of Evolution." That, I feel certain was a collaborative effort by some rather forceful men of the age who wanted something new by which to define the world in which we live. On the subject of the "flagellum or the eye" - why not - as there seems to be a great diversity of both, each about as specialized within each of the organisms they seemed to have evolved for, some with greater abilities than others - granted: to me it is precisely this evidence that makes me truly agog with wonder with those who insist these organs or organisms developed on their own within their respective organisms. And yet we have animals who live beneath the oceans that have scarcely any eye or not at all because they simply are not needed in their natural environments. How did a sea creature that lives so deeply in such frigid waters evolve and where precisely did that occur - was it within that primordal stew out there floating about in space? Highly unlikely! No to the naysayers again.. I believe that Behe and his cohorts have hit upon a key to opening doors that eventually will engulf the archaic thinking of all those who oppose him. Of course there are always the skeptics who would rather wrestle down here in the pits with us mere mortals than ever taking on the authors of the works of the ID crowd. I will not cross swords with any of you ladies or gentlemen. You do not have a need to accept my observations; nor should you feel you have a need to make light of honest and intelligent men who gather to get a look at new ways of looking at things.....this I believe is one method by which true scientists gather data for their works.Demonstrating quite well that you have not actually looked at the evidence for evolution (as opposed to the misrepresentation of it by people like Behe and Dembski and Hovind et al), and that you haven't the slightest idea what is "unlikely" as opposed to "likely" and how they play out in the context of evolution across the eons..

[kmortis]

Demonstrating quite well that you have not actually looked at the evidence for evolution (as opposed to the misrepresentation of it by people like Behe and Dembski and Hovind et al), and that you haven't the slightest idea what is "unlikely" as opposed to "likely" and how they play out in the context of evolution across the eons..

As an aid to those who DO want to get edumikated in the topic of evolution, but don't want to bother with all that pesky reading stuff, I give you the Evolution101 podcast (http://www.drzach.net/podcast.htm). Dr. Zach distilled down all that good info into about 30 podcasts, each lasting between 30-60 minutes. Enjoy.

And for those of us who do understand it, it's still a good show.

[Shalamar]

Hmm... There's this guy who has come forward and said that Evolution is supported by the scientific evidence.

I think he goes by 'Pope'. Well, at least Catholics are allowed to trust in the scientific evidence...

[DOC]

Hmm... There's this guy who has come forward and said that Evolution is supported by the scientific evidence.

I think he goes by 'Pope'. Well, at least Catholics are allowed to trust in the scientific evidence...


Well there is the atheistic theory evolution and the Christian theory of evolution:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia website "New Advent"

"The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

[url]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm[/u

[Cleon]

Well there is the atheistic theory evolution and the Christian theory of evolution:

No, there isn't. The theory of evolution says nothing about whether there's a god or not.


(Of course, one wonders if the Jews and Muslims have their own theories of evolution, as well. :rolleyes:)

[DOC]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia website "New Advent"

"The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm



No, there isn't. The theory of evolution says nothing about whether there's a god or not.

If Darwin is allowed to have a theory so are the Catholics.

[Cleon]

If Darwin is allowed to have a theory so are the Catholics.

"Theory" is not a synonym for "something I pulled out of my tukhus."

Fact: Evolutionary theory says nothing about whether there is a God or not.

To claim otherwise is lying.

[thaiboxerken]

Well there is the atheistic theory evolution and the Christian theory of evolution

There is a theory of evolution. The "christian" theory of evolution isn't really a theory at all, it's conjecture and religious nonsense made to fit in with science.

[Safe-Keeper]

A 'theory' in scientific jargon is an idea that used to be an hypothesis, but has since become a theory since it's found to be backed by sufficient evidence. Like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution.

If Darwin is allowed to have a theory so are the Catholics.I tried that with F-16 jets. But no, the Air Force has plenty and I don't get a single one:(.

[drkitten]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia website "New Advent"

"The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

Yeah. New Advent got it wrong, whether deliberately (by lying) or accidentally (by being stupid) is unclear. Even the Papal bulls from which they draw don't make the distinction that they wish.

There is no more "atheistic theory of evolution" than there is an atheistic "theory of gravity." You can, if you like, believe that gravity exists because God willed it so, or you can believe that God does not exist. The theory of gravity does not so much reject the assumption that God exists as ignores it as irrelevant.

Similarly, the theory of evolution ignores the assumption that I am wearing green today. It neither accepts nor rejects it; it is unnecessary. Every bit as unnecessary as the assumption that there is,... or is not,... a God.

[Bob Klase]

Not according to 3 billion people

If popularity is your criteria for determining what's true then you'd better start thinking seriously about converting to Islam.

[articulett]

Regarding "ID" there are some fantastic videos here about the Dover Trial and the dishonesty of ID from both Eugenie Scott and David Chapman here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1778,n,n

They are so very good. And so very revealing of Doc and his ilk. I know that bleevers won't go there, but I want those who understand evolution to understand just how dishonest these people are in order to confuse the understanding of evolution.

Here's also a great video. http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/76262/detail/

I think Doc and his ilk would have Christian type Madras and Jesus Camp inculcated into the youth of America to make them as stupid as he is if he could. The majority of theists over the world accept evolution just fine... just as they accept that earth is a tiny spec in the universe and his about 4 billion years old-- whereas; the universe is closer to 14 billion years old. They understand that whatever god is... he didn't give us the facts he could have if he was indeed omniscient... humans, instead, have accumulating the information (evolving the information, if you will) through slow and steady accumulation of data and trial and error and honing of the most brilliant minds over the eons...

Whatever Christianity may have been good for--it's time to get rid of the training wheels and move forward. Being stuck in the childhood of our species is just backwards and sad.

(Eugenie's TAM II speech available at JREF's video archive is also excellent.) Learn what science knows and what the facts reveal about the "Intelligent Design" blather.

[Bob Klase]

Learn what science knows and what the facts reveal about the "Intelligent Design" blather.

I came across this book in my library a few weeks ago and read it. Another good source about the ID vs. Science blather:

http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confront-Intelligent-Design-Creationism/dp/0393050904

Something that surprised me is that you can also find that book here:

http://www.cdgospel.net/rel/v2_viewupc.php?storenr=247&upc=0393050904&pt=6&affnr=-1

[verusl@centurytel.ne]

There are many things I have read on these pages.....personally I would dare to take issue with a great many of the dogmas expressed by the closed minds of those who believe that evolution or ID are in any way connected to GOD....or Hi