We’re talking, on an American-based message board, populated primarily by Americans, about an event that happened in America, to an American, perpetrated by Americans, over a heated issue in American politics. Excuse the fuck out of me for using an “America-centric” definition of the word, you fucking tool.
That’s not what I asked for a cite about. I asked for a cite that my usage of “Creationism” was not the most common, or at least a common, definition of the term. The fact that there are words whose meaning is in dispute is not news. The fact that hte word “creationism” itself is in dispute is also not news. You claimed that I was using the word in an unusual sense particular to a “skewed demographic.” I’d like to see you back that shit up.
What does this have to do with the definition of “Creationism?” Try to stay on topic for at least two paragraphs, birdbrain.
Jesus H. Christ, are you on drugs? What does this have to do with anything I’ve said in this thread?
No, it wasn’t. You’re inventing your own definitions for words again.
If you want to debate Creationism in the context of a different nation or culture, fine. But that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about Creationism as it is understood in the context of the current American social/political landscape. You keep insisting that everyone who is discussing it in that context is wrong because they’re not discussing it in whatever context you want to discuss it in. This is really, really fucking annoying, and I wish you’d stop it.
I don’t buy that last sentence for a second.
Who do you think beat that professor up by the side of the road? Tibetan yak herders? They were Americans, angered by a perceived threat to their Judeo-Christian conception of Creationism. What other fucking definition of the term is relevant to this debate?
Uh-huh. Perhaps you ought to meditate on what this say about your ability to convey your ideas, then.
Please do so quietly, and at length.
Which biases are these, exactly?
No, it’s not. It’s your definition of the word, and I have no doubt you can find some support for it, but it is not the only definition of the word, it is not the most common definition of the word, and it most certainly is not the definition of the word being used in this thread or by any of the people in the article that inspired it.
I’ll say. I can feel my IQ draining away just by being in the same thread as you.
So now you’re defining “religion” loosely enough to include both “American” and “human,” eh? Is there anything that you don’t define as being a religion?
I’m not under any requirement to attack every single post on these boards with which I disagree. I don’t agree with much Der Trihs says, but I’m not interested in picking a fight with him. This may change at a future date. It may not. It bears no relationship to how I feel about you.
Which is funny, because from where I’m sitting, you’re pretty much the poster boy for intellectual dishonesty. Although I give you enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume that you’re not deliberatly dishonest, merely too stupid to recognize what you’re doing.
I’ve never said it to Der Trihs, but if you cared to look, you’d see that the majority of my posts about religion have been made in defense of theistic thought. Look for any religiously-themed thread featuring me and gobear, and you’ll see that we were usually at each other’s throats over the issue.
Yeah, you’ve always struck me as the bigoted type. Nice of you to admit it, I guess.
I guess we’ll just have to add “self-aggrandizing” to the list of terms you don’t understand the meaning of. This is certainly turning into quite a long list.
No, it doesn’t. The fact that you’re an idiot who wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked you in the face is what makes you both wrong and less intelligent than me.
How’s that working out for you?
Dude, that’s all you ever talk about on here.
From what I’ve seen, it usually gets addressed, rebutted, and then you throw a tantrum because people aren’t agreeing with you.
These semantic arguments wouldn’t exsist if you would not insist on inventing your own definitions for commonly accepted terms, or at the very least, clearly define your terms before you start blasting people for not adhereing to your definitions.
No, usually they’re arguing one very specific definition of the word, and you blow a gasket because they’re not using some specialized (or, more often, non-exsistant) definition that has nothing to do with the context of the debate at hand. If you’d just once try and comprehend the context of a debate before you jump in with both feet, you might actually end up contributing something useful to a debate.
mswas, you do have a tendency to just make up your own rules and definitions. And that’s fine, really, it shows you’re thinking about things. But if you want to talk and share these things with other people, don’t assume your definitions are the ones that are common - if you’ve come up with them yourself, logically they aren’t going to be common at all. Just define your terms a bit better when you argue.
Oooh, and please answer my question from above, theists!
All I was saying is that it’s not acceptable in public discourse to mock your opponents, you doodoohead. I wasn’t suggesting there should be any kind of sanctions or law against it, pusforbrains. I even find the Republican pressure to defund the school if it doesn’t fall in line a detestable exercise not of speech criticizing the words as unacceptable, but as political blackmail.
I’m about as pro-evolution/anti-teaching creationism in science classrooms as anyone here, but I’m getting vibes about the Mirecki beating that apparently are similar to those of NurseCarmen.
Maybe someone in Kansas got revved up about this sub-controversy enough to stalk Mirecki and assault him. Or he could have been the victim of a typical road rage incident and then tried to distract attention from his teaching troubles (and draw sympathy) by claiming the guys who slugged him were pro-creationist.
I was reminded of another recent case where a guest speaker at a university claimed her car was vandalized and bigoted slogans scrawled on it - and it turned out she did it herself.
I hope I’m wrong, but I have doubts about Mirecki’s story.
Well, this gets into my salvation experience I guess, but God has proven Himself sufficiently real to me that I take Him at His word. I know what I was before Jesus saved me, and I know what I am now. I have seen evidence of this change in others as well, and this is sufficient evidence for me to hold my beliefs.
I know that there are others out there who say that evolution and a belief in God are not opposed, and that you do both at once. I respect their beliefs, but I personally find the beliefs diametrically opposed, and I do not feel comfortable removing God’s personal hand in the act of creation. Nor do I fully expect to understand the intricacies of how this creation is possible simply because I believe God to be a supernatural being, and thus it is beyond my ability to grasp the act of Creation.
But I’ve hijacked this thread enough. On to condemning (and rightly so) those who beat up this professor.
Holy schmoley, what did I do to get up your ass? I didn’t say you were suggesting anything other than what you actually did:
I wondered if you actually meant it as categorically as I read it, which is why I ended my post with a question about exactly that. Evidently, you do not.
While I’m curious as to your definition of “mockery” and “public forum” and the limits on what might be (un)acceptable, I don’t really care all that much. Carry on then, as it seems you’re awfully good at doing so, bless your heart.
I think getting beat up is a lot more confrontational than a private email to a select group of people. Further it looks like someone may have deliberately leaked the email for spiteful purposes. I lost the cite link. If asked, I will go looking again.
I don’t see it as a stab at Christianity. It is only a minor swipe at a small group that believes in Intelligent Design - a group who sees it as their right to force their dogma on other people… even if those people’s religions flatly reject ID. Several major religions do reject ID. Should these be forced to study something they consider false or heretical? It’s an important thing to think about. Why should one minor sect get preferential treatment over other, larger religious groups? It sounds unconstitutional to me.
With the sort of venom Robertson spews on a constant basis, every church should denounce him. I’m happy the Episcopals and Catholics agree on this, and it strengthens my point above… making someone have to learn some other group’s religious views.
That’s fine and dandy. You can believe whatever you choose. It’s a free country. Faith is a good thing. But you would not try to beat your belief into someone else. These yahoos in the OP did try. That’s the problem. It is religious intolerance at its “finest”.
If their faith was so easily threatened or shaken, then they have NO faith at all. True belief would mean they think their faith will stand on its own merits.
That there is the important thing. You may not share their beliefs but you respect them. Further, there is no need to remove God from anything. Evolution does not remove God. Physics does not remove God. Science can not go back to before The Creation. According to the Church (mine anyway), before the Creation, God was already there. The Prime Mover, the Creator, the Big Banger. There is no conflict. I can believe in evolution and God, and my church agrees. You may believe God continued guiding, and your church may agree. But at least you aren’t running around smashing nonbelievers.
Below is, if you will “official church dogma” for Catholics. One quote is from the Vatican, the other is Saint Augustine.
This question is NOT directed at Psycho Pirate. He has already stated he respects other beliefs and would not compel anyone to follow his. It is directed at those who feel that ID should be required “learning” in Kansas, Dover or elsewhere, and who seem to think that a rude personal email somehow “justifies” a beating… How can “you” dare think you can require or force a teaching that is flatly rejected as wrong by other, equally “valid” faiths? Constitutionally, you can’t. How can you even begin to “justify” violence in the name of religion - any religion, when one of the biggest is yelling “hogwash”?
Damn, I only left to go finish Christmas shopping and the thread exploded. But I’ll try to address your question, Steve
I never justified the professor’s beating, in the name of religion or otherwise. In fact, I said:
I went on to say this:
because of his pulicized email about figuratively slapping Christians in their fat faces, and because of his location. Not to generalize, but the midwest has a very large Christian population. I don’t believe anyone appreciates being called stupid, or having their beliefs insulted.
That said: his asshole attitude toward Christians doesn’t make what happened right. But being right doesn’t excuse him for being a world class prick. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who are offended by what this professor has said about them shouldn’t be pissed off.
All I was trying to point out is, it’s difficult to teach something to a bunch of people you’ve deeply offended, which is what the seminar purportedly was intended to do.
I have no beef with you then. And yes, he did come off as a smug prick. Still, I wonder, if there were not this big push to “require” ID, would any of this have happened? How did the email get leaked, and who did it? Why? Intelligent Design is a religious belief, no matter what arguments are used. As such, it belongs in the churches of those who believe in it. That is where it should stay.
At the risk of appearing argumentative or obtuse, no, I do not accept that it is ignorant. The two primary definitions given for ‘ignorant’ are 1)Lacking education or knowledge, and 2)Unaware or uninformed. As to definition number 1, I was the valedictorian of my high school. I hold a Bachelors degree in Computer Science, and a Masters of Software Engineering. I’m also almost finished with my Bachelors of Biblical studies. I have both education and knowledge. As to definition number 2, I am neither unaware or uninformed about the leading evolutionary process theories prevalent today (although I am not well versed in the finer points as they hold little interest to me). File me under “unconvinced”, or “unwilling to accept the current definition on how this universe, planet, and life on this planet came to be”.
I’m not saying that can’t be the explanation. I’m just saying that I don’t buy in to that explanation. It works both ways, you know. I don’t have to accept that explanation in order for you to accept it. Likewise, you don’t have to accept my beliefs in order for me to hold them.
I appreciate your civility. I believe the earth is round because I have seen pictures of a round Earth, I have seen globes, I have seen photos taken from space of Earth, and it is round (although I recall reading somewhere that the poles were somewhat elongated or otherwise distorted, resulting in an imperceptible ovoid shape to the Earth). The Bible also backs up my belief (Isaiah 40:22). I believe that the Holocaust happened (though I wish it had not happened) because I have read about it, I have visited the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C., and I have seen several films and documentaries detailing the plight of those who died there, as well as the survivors. In both of these cases, I have been convinced by the evidence presented to me.
So now you’re probably thinking, “But there’s just as much evidence, if not more evidence, that this planet is billions of years old, and that the process of evolution is the correct explanation for how life came to be on this planet”. Well, I disagree that this evidence is so “cut and dried” as to be convincing, at least to me. For one, there is the unfortunate matter of hoaxes that were perpetrated in the past. Anytime someone is willing to be dishonest about something tells me that they are not to be trusted. Second, I find many of the explanations too fleeting and ephemeral as to be convincing. I recognize that science changes as more evidence is uncovered, and that this is a good thing (otherwise as you point out we would still think Earth was flat). However, as I stated earlier, I believe that as science changes, it will fall more closely in line to my beliefs. I’m really not sure what else to say.
What are your alternate explanations for the evidence?
The evidence for evolution and for an ancient Earth has been checked and rechecked by hundreds of thousands of scientists for more than a century, now, and it all keeps adding up to the same conclusion. It would have to be either a conspiracy of truly mind-boggling proportions for it to all be a hoax.
What evidence do you have that indicates science is going to eventually match up with your beliefs?
I’d also like to add that one can be educated in some respects, and still be ignorant in others. I’m pretty ignorant about computer programing, for example. From your own statements, you’ve admitted that you’re ignorant of the science behind evolution: it’s not something that interests you enough to research. Which is fine, but the thing is: I don’t have many opinions about computer programming, because I don’t know enough about it to form them. You do have an opinion about evolution, but it’s not at all clear that you have enough information for that opinion to be informed.
But what about the hundreds of thousands of non-hoaxes - you are not seriously suggesting that every fossil is a hoax? You can go and dig them up yourself! If you do, you will find trilobites at the bottom, dinosaurs in the middle and humans only near the surface. What is you explanation for that? If you can’t think of a logically consistent alternative to the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old, surely you must logically accept that the Earth is billions of years old until new evidence suggests otherwise?
And then there’s extra-galaxctic supernova light/continental plate jigsaws/stalactite formation/scarcity of long half-life isotopes etc. etc. etc. Do you ignore these as well?
Incidentally, Pirate we’re not (yet) talking about the finer points of speciation, cosmology, abiogenesis and all the rest of it. For now, we’re just talking about the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, which is as true a fact as that the Earth is round and that the Holocaust happened.
Is this being provided as a “reliable” cite? I hope not.
Sorry, but that “article” smells like bullshit.
Item (1) So if this email was a “private” message to similar minded people, and was not intended for “public consumption”, who the hell leaked it, and why?
Item (2) Which skeptics? Who are they, and what did they say?
Item (3) So much for impartial news, this is just bullshit propaganda. It’s those damn commie leftists again.
Item (4) Who? John Altevogt? Who? Ohhhh a “conservative activist”. That’s real impartial. Who the hell is he, and why would I care what he says?
Item (5) OK, ummmm if the attackers were white and wore blue jeans, then BECAUSE that could be anyone, it then follows that no attack occurred.
