[han]

mike777, on Dec 19 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

Another area of possible discussion is are the relativist and constructivist conceptions of truth and knowledge, which is basic orthodoxy in vast areas of the academic world, fundamentally flawed?

What do you want Mike? Are you interested in discussion? Or do you want to write down strings of fancy sounding words that seem like sentences?

If you want to rephrase your original question again, please do, but if you want an on-topic response from me you'll have to make it easier:

1. Use at most one difficult word per sentence. Keep in mind that I am a foreigner with very limited English understanding.

2. Write precisely and preferably in correct English. As a mathematician I am too sensitive and reading your writing hurts me.

3. Don't use terms you don't understand.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I did not want to say in this context: Do this or that because in the sense of christian ethic it is right.
I wanted to say: We do this or that, but all our ethical descissions are based on our history. This history influences our descissions today. And this history is very much christian.

One would hope that knowing history we would make more sensible ethical decision than those made in the past.

As a simple example I think that anyone who is against gay marriage cannot call himself a Christian as this violates the prime directive "do not onto others what you do not want others to do onto you". If you love someone you want to marry this person, you want others to allow you to. So you have to allow others to do so too.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on Dec 19 2007, 03:06 AM, said:

Quote

I did not want to say in this context: Do this or that because in the sense of christian ethic it is right.
I wanted to say: We do this or that, but all our ethical descissions are based on our history. This history influences our descissions today. And this history is very much christian.

One would hope that knowing history we would make more sensible ethical decision than those made in the past.

As a simple example I think that anyone who is against gay marriage cannot call himself a Christian as this violates the prime directive "do not onto others what you do not want others to do onto you". If you love someone you want to marry this person, you want others to allow you to. So you have to allow others to do so too.

I think of it this way: If God didn't include "Thou shalt not tell other people how to live their private lives" as one of the Ten Commandments it's only because He thought it was too obvious to need saying.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Dec 19 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

I think of it this way: ~~

and i think of it this way... for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and the wages of sin is death, but even so God has given us the gift of life through Jesus Christ, his son

[Al_U_Card]

Science = to know, so how could God be pissed off at us for "knowing" unless....its that apple from the tree thingie again.....I guess banishment from paradise could be considered an act of a pissed-off God.

So, based on past history, the answer must be yes because who "knows" what God is thinking? We only "know" what He is doing or has wrought.

[han]

mike777, on Dec 19 2007, 02:58 AM, said:

It is interesting to see the debate that if knowledge is socially constructed either as truth or as justification or the common sense view is that there is a way the world is  that is independent of human opinion and we are capable of arriving at beliefs about how it is that are objectively reasonable.

Does this sentence start at the beginning and end at the end or does it require a less traditional way of reading?

[matmat]

Hannie, on Dec 20 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

Does this sentence start at the beginning and end at the end or does it require a less traditional way or reading?

is is is? or is is was? or is is will be?
can is be? does everything that is need a beginning and end? can an end be before a beginning, does a beginning need an end?

[doldridg]

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

mycroft, on Dec 13 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

So, is Scientific Creationism falsifiable?  Does it predict, in an experimentable way, something?

Without those two properties, it may be decent belief, *it may even be right* - but it's not Science (it also has to explain all the data to be current Science, but it does).

The answer to all of the "why can't we just" questions is that in order for it to be Science, it must meet those three criteria.  If it doesn't, then it isn't Science and should no more be taught in Science classes as Spanish (which is probably a good thing for certain people to learn, but it's not Science - and I wouldn't want people trying to teach me Science in Spanish class, either).  I make an exception for using it to make the exact argument I'm making here - that it is an explanation, but since it can't be tested, falsified, or used for prediction, it doesn't meet the criteria for Science.  That doesn't mean it's *wrong*, necessarily.

This is a strong point. Creationism theory cannot be a science.

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
-consistent (internally and externally)
-parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
-useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
-empirically testable and falsifiable
-based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
-correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
-progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
-tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)", but:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation.

b)Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations.

c) Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.

d)Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.

e)Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. "

On the other half, evolution theory it's a science and it's rational. It helps its main purposes.It put things in order, from small to big, from simple to complex, everyone has his branch in the evolutionary tree. It also tries to explain how did it happen. It's logical and apprehensible. But it has some flaws:

"a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing
c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species.
d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical
e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step.
f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics
g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"

So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator

You reiterated here certain false claims that are popular with creationist apologists.

1. You state there are no transitional fossils. This is false. Very false, in fact, since every fossil not at the end of an extinct lineage is, in some sense, transitional. What is missing in the fossil record is a lot of rich, gradual transitions between species.
Above the species level it is difficult to find a non-transitional fossil.

2. You say the fosssil record does not show that species evolve, yet the hominin record is replete with a set of our very own ancestors and several extinct collateral branches.

3. You claim that species are immutable, yet experimental evidence shows that new genetic information arises in every generation. Dobzhansky bred two incipient species of drosophila from a single monoclonal pair--in just 20 generations!. We have protocols for producing new genera in flowering plants.

4. You claim that the odds against are astronomical. We don't actually have any way of knowing this--yet. The odds against nature producing any particular organism as a random synthesis are huge indeed. But what are the odds against the random synthesis, on an entire planet, of a single, successful 200-atom replicator?

5. The mandelbrodt set and its cognates demonstrate that infinite complexity can result from simple iterative processes.

6. You claim evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is also false. Entropy is additive, If the evolution of man from microbe entails a negative entropy change, then it follows that at least one, single, necessary event in that evolution must entail a negative entropy change. When I make this point to creationist apologists they either change the subject or attempt a grand handwave. What they have never done is produce the required evidence. I conclude, therefore, that this argument, when repeated by anyone claiming scientific credentials is a deliberate lie intended to deceive people lacking the scientific education to see what is wrong with it,

7. The fossil record is most emphatically not sorted in anything resembling hydraulic order. On the contrary, it is very obviously sorted in phylogenetic order. This, when told by an apologist claiming expertise in geology or paleontology also qualifies as a deliberate lie.

The real solution to this conflict is for the churches that care about truth to stop giving pulpit space to the deceivers and for honest Christians to abandon churches that support a false witness as part of their requirement for communion.

[Winstonm]

There are some unsettling aspects of "The Christian Right" and untoward influence.

Examples:

Quote

Tuesday 18 September 2007

    A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused

Quote

A religious freedom foundation that has sued the military alleging widespread violations of religious freedom said Tuesday that it has evidence showing that soldiers are pressured to adopt fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Quote

When Albuquerque attorney and businessman Mikey Weinstein stopped in to see his son Curtis at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in late July of 2004, he could tell something was wrong. Normally upbeat and exuberant, the 20-year-old seemed downcast and troubled.

Mikey Weinstein, who served more than three years as an attorney/advisor in the White House during the presidency of Ronald W. Reagan, started his own investigation. After talking to more than 100 people, he uncovered an atmosphere at the Academy saturated with evangelical Christianity. Chaplains and other top military leaders at the institution, he said, exhorted cadets to bring their peers to faith in Jesus. Cadets who embraced evangelical beliefs received preferential treatment, and cadets of other faiths or none found that their perspectives were not respected.

Quote

Monday October 8, 2007 - The Defense Department (DOD) allegedly provided two fundamentalist Christian organizations exclusive access to several military bases around the country. This access became official sanction for these groups to proselytize amid the ranks, despite the fact that such activities were in violation of federal law.

Sorry, but it is too dangerous to have this type thinking pervade the greatest instrument of warfare known in history - the U.S. military cannot be allowed to become the war machine of this religious fundamentalist right wing.

This has to be stopped dead in its tracks before it takes roots.

[blackshoe]

If that stuff is true, it's a serious problem that needs to be stopped now. Also, if it's true, the military has changed drastically since I retired 14 years ago.

[Winstonm]

Here is more on this subject: http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-..._notsofast.html

[Al_U_Card]

The pernicious influence of the evangelical bible-thumpers is especially dangerous because it instills them with a "divine right" to espouse and support others who "profess" to their ideals and creeds. The neocons and PTB use these "soldiers of Christ" in the same way that the crusaders were used etc. There is no difference in their fanaticism than that of the radical Islamists or Catholic/Protestants in Belfast or any other zealot group.

The absolutely corrupt power-brokers use these faith-blinded zombies to do their bidding without question and without hesitation, for they are doing "God's work". That is a god to which I will never yield to nor accept.

[kenberg]

They tell me that during the First World War the soldiers took a break at Christmas to sing carols to the other side. A fine idea.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all.

Ken

[barmar]

kenberg, on Dec 22 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

They tell me that during the First World War the soldiers took a break at Christmas to sing carols to the other side. A fine idea.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all.

Ken

This seems to be true:

http://en.wikipedia....Christmas_truce
http://www.snopes.co...stmas/truce.asp

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments. What a "Christian" thing to do.

Maybe if religion were more often used as a reason to avoid war in the first place. Sadly, iit's often precisely the opposite -- many wars have been instigated over religious conflicts.

[Winstonm]

It seems The Flying Spaghetti Monster has invaded Florida, as well, and saved the children there from another fundamentalist board of education.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/.../268/826/426324

This quote make me shake my head:

Quote

And board member Fields, who started the controversy, tried to blame - big surprise here - the media! Fields told the Tribune, via e-mail, that she didn't realize there would be a story "on the front page of the Ledger indicating that I opposed evolution."  Yes, it's definitely the Ledger's fault for letting the public know what a publicly elected school official told the newspaper, on record, about a public education issue.

"All who do evil hate the light and will not come to the light, because it will show all the evil things they do."

Damn Newspapers!

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Dec 23 2007, 03:40 AM, said:

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments. What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Dec 29 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 23 2007, 03:40 AM, said:

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder.

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Dec 29 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 23 2007, 03:40 AM, said:

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder.

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

nope, no vote... as you know, winston, some people read one thing and see another

[Winstonm]

Quote

nope, no vote... as you know, winston, some people read one thing and see another

This is all getting a bit confusing, but let me see if I can sort it out. Killing is not necessarily murder; as long as it's not murder, it's O.K; that should be a relief to all the drunk drivers of the world, charged with manslaughter instead of murder. However, I'm still confused on this "war" issue. Korea and Vietnam were undeclared wars - does that mean the killings there were undeclared murder?
And what about police officer who kills in the line of duty - that's not a war, either, so are they guilty of warless murder?

Who knew there were so many loopholes in The Ten Commandments - guess that's to expected when the guy who brought them down from the mountain is a past president of the NRA.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Dec 29 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Dec 29 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 23 2007, 03:40 AM, said:

They took a one day break from violating one of the 10 Commandments.  What a "Christian" thing to do.

Heh. I think your understanding of that commandment is flawed. Killing in the course of war is not, generally speaking, murder.

The Ten Commandents were changed? THOU SHALT NOT MURDER?

I didn't see that....was there a vote?

There wasn't any "vote"

The Christianists needed some way to reconcile the Sixth Commandment with

1. The old Testament which is chock full of righteous wrath
2. Their own pet theories about "just war", killing abortion providers, the death penalty, and "collateral damage".

So, they divided killing into "good killing" (the kind "god" likes) and bad killing.