Majority Rule and Rights of Minorities (Very Long) - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 23, 2005

RE: Majority Rule and Rights of Minorities (Very Long)

Date: Oct 23, 2005

Read my lips wrote:

Atheist wrote: I also see an indication of biological evolution in genesis that surprised me . . I would appreciate a polite explanation from theists who know their bible . . It would go a long way to ending the debate if they spoke up. I have seen posted on this very message board statements from theists who find no conflict between biological evolution and creation. Why does the poster who calls himself "Scientist" so argumentative about that? It's not difficult to reconcile the Biblical account of creation with traditional biological evolution. I don't think it's the fundamental Christian who has the reading and reasoning problems you mentioned in your post.

"Read my lips", I have been correcting statements from posters who mislead the public about science and I.D. If providing logical arguments back by facts or evidence is being "argumentative" then I'm guilty. I don't recall ever saying that religious people could never reconcile how evolution and creation could coexists. I believe the Catholics have done this. That seemed to be the point made by “Atheist”.

In my opinion with all the various interpretations of scripture this should not be difficult as long as you don't end up contradicting yourself. For example: God is good, but deceives us with fossils that appear old.

Date: Oct 27, 2005

C.L--October 27, 2005

Evolution involved in avian flu virus

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/OPINION/510270310/1009

Date: Oct 27, 2005

Logical Extension wrote:
Evolution involved in avian flu virus

All the more reason to outlaw evolution in the public schools! It would reduce the risk of influenza! At least that's how some yahoo preacher with a grade 13 education from South Saltillio Junior College & a congregation that meets in a double-wide trailer is going to interpret it.

(I would certainly hope that the Clarion-Ledger hack that came up with that headline didn't get his or her journalism training at the University of Southern Miss'ippi.)

Date: Oct 27, 2005

Logical Extension wrote:

C.L--October 27, 2005 Evolution involved in avian flu virus http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/OPINION/510270310/1009

Hey, this could make for some interesting theology. God "Intelligently Designs" flu virus to get rid of sinners. God "Intelligently Designs" hurricane to get rid of "sin city of New Orleans". (Biloxi was just collateral damage. )

How do you prove this theology is wrong? Can any theology ever be wrong?

Date: Oct 27, 2005

Opinions

Debate on intelligent design vs. evolution rages on, continues to baffle minds
By David McRaney

October 27, 2005

http://www.studentprintz.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/27/4360432f8073d

Date: Oct 31, 2005

Creationism not a theory, but 'belief'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051031/OPINION/510310305/1009

'Secularists' mix scientific terms

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051031/OPINION/510310311/1009

Date: Oct 31, 2005

If different populations can, but do not in nature, interbreed (to subsequently producing fertile offspring), are they different species? If the barriers to reproduction exist long enough in nature for genetic drift in the two populations to make them incapable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring, then we do have two distinct species by definition? Now, are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? Was it microevolution right up until the infertile offspring part?

Date: Oct 31, 2005

Black Kettle wrote:

If different populations can, but do not in nature, interbreed (to subsequently producing fertile offspring), are they different species? If the barriers to reproduction exist long enough in nature for genetic drift in the two populations to make them incapable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring, then we do have two distinct species by definition? Now, are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? Was it microevolution right up until the infertile offspring part?

You gave a very clear explanation of the Creationist problem, Black Kettle. The Talk.Origins web site puts it this way:

"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."

Date: Oct 31, 2005

Yep, and I'm sure you noticed postdoc's decidedly unscientific use of this phrase in conceding microevolution, "This theory has been proven."

Date: Oct 31, 2005

Black Kettle wrote:

Yep, and I'm sure you noticed postdoc's decidedly unscientific use of this phrase in conceding microevolution, "This theory has been proven."

Yes and you could tell the writers mental reference when they use the decidedly religious phrasing, "...what the great Charles Darwin has revealed to us through his teachings." It is as if the knowledge didn't come from observations of physical world that all could see.

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20051102/sc_space/darwinsnaturalselectionstillatworkinhumans

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Continuing this discussion on evolution is like whuppin' up on a dead horse. Can't we change the topic? I suggest we discuss the second law of thermodynamics. Who'll go first?

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Know it All wrote:

Continuing this discussion on evolution is like whuppin' up on a dead horse. Can't we change the topic? I suggest we discuss the second law of thermodynamics. Who'll go first?

You brought it up, so what do you want to discuss concerning the Second Law of Thermo? And why did you pick that Law of all the Laws of Nature? It is the only one most misunderstood by the Creationists.

Also I.D. is not a “dead horse” until the courts say so.

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Scientist wrote:

And why did you pick that Law of all the Laws of Nature? It is the only one most misunderstood by the Creationists.

Scientist, why must you try to relate everything anybody says to evolution? Get some rest, man, live a little. Lighten up. Have some fun. There's lots of other things to think about other than evolutiion.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Wide Wonderful World wrote:

Scientist wrote: And why did you pick that Law of all the Laws of Nature? It is the only one most misunderstood by the Creationists. Scientist, why must you try to relate everything anybody says to evolution? Get some rest, man, live a little. Lighten up. Have some fun. There's lots of other things to think about other than evolutiion.

Please notice, WWW, I didn't mention evolution in my post. I only spoke of I.D. and Creationists. Please read the post to which I responded.

I’ll try to "lighten up", WWW, but the barbarians keep knocking at my gate.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I’ll try to "lighten up", WWW, but the barbarians keep knocking at my gate.

Scientist, in the interest of fairness I should call your attention to a very interesting article that hit the Washington Post about an hour ago. This will, no doubt, provide fodder for both sides of the debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110300485.html

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Wide Wonderful World wrote:

Scientist wrote: I’ll try to "lighten up", WWW, but the barbarians keep knocking at my gate. Scientist, in the interest of fairness I should call your attention to a very interesting article that hit the Washington Post about an hour ago. This will, no doubt, provide fodder for both sides of the debate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110300485.html

Thanks, WWW. I don't know how either side will use this in the debate, but I enjoy reading articles about sex, any sex.

(I still look at the opposite sex, but I forget why.)

P.S. Is this what you mean by "lighten up"?

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Scientist wrote:

WWW. I don't know how either side will use this in the debate

Well, Scientist, I thought maybe somebody might conclude from that scientific observation that modern ape came from the fossil

Date: Nov 8, 2005

Barbarians score in Midwest.

Kansas school board redefines science

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

Date: Nov 8, 2005

Handicapper wrote:

Barbarians score in Midwest. Kansas school board redefines science http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

Wow!! This is important news. Scientists need to know that:

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

Date: Nov 9, 2005

Barbarians defeated in the East.

Intelligent-design' school board ousted in Penn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051109/sc_nm/election_usa_evolution_dc

Date: Nov 9, 2005

Barbarians? That's pretty strong. I seem to recall that the Christians were the ones who saved Western civilization the last time the "barbarians" were on the prowl.

Date: Nov 9, 2005

LVN wrote:

Barbarians? That's pretty strong. I seem to recall that the Christians were the ones who saved Western civilization the last time the "barbarians" were on the prowl.

LVN, I didn't say Christians because Christians are not attacking evolution or pushing I.D. In fact many Christians oppose the I.D. push on religious grounds. Apparently the I.D. movement is composed of fundamentalists in the USA. I know many Christians point to St Augustine's warnings that to deny science is to lead educated people away from Christ’s message. I heard the Catholic Church and others has condemned the I.D. moment as unethical.

So educated Christians are not the barbarians. In my book those who attack rational thinking are the barbarians at my gate. I hope the educated Christians, atheist or whatever can save us from the barbarians again.

Date: Nov 9, 2005

LVN wrote:

Barbarians? That's pretty strong. I seem to recall that the Christians were the ones who saved Western civilization the last time the "barbarians" were on the prowl.

According to the CNN story, "the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." I'd say 'barbaric' is mild. And note, Handicapper didn't call them "Christians"-- he called them "Barbarians." In point in fact, I rarely hear someone attack these folks because they are Christian. Rather, it seems that people are quick to defend them because they are Christian. I'd call them barbarians and many of other things this board would censor-- but only they claim to be Christians. Why agree with them? Why defend them?

Date: Nov 10, 2005

mystery wrote:

LVN wrote: Barbarians? That's pretty strong. I seem to recall that the Christians were the ones who saved Western civilization the last time the "barbarians" were on the prowl.

According to the CNN story, "the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." I'd say 'barbaric' is mild. And note, Handicapper didn't call them "Christians"-- he called them "Barbarians." In point in fact, I rarely hear someone attack these folks because they are Christian. Rather, it seems that people are quick to defend them because they are Christian. I'd call them barbarians and many of other things this board would censor-- but only they claim to be Christians. Why agree with them? Why defend them?

Thanks Mystery. You did a much better job than I in expalining this point.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Must scientists be derided in debate?

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/OPINION02/511130312/1009/OPINION

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The question is not whether those who believe in God also believe in science. Of course they do.The question is whether scientists believe in God. Some of them do and some of them don't. You don't have to hold a Ph.D. in science or in theology to draw those conclusions. Just ask them and you'll see.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Issue laid to rest wrote:

The question is not whether those who believe in God also believe in science. Of course they do.The question is whether scientists believe in God. Some of them do and some of them don't. You don't have to hold a Ph.D. in science or in theology to draw those conclusions. Just ask them and you'll see.

May I make a few comments on your post, "Issue laid to Rest"? To be precise people don't have to believe in science because they can test it and thus have evidence that it is correct.

Who is asking the question, "do scientist believe in God"? And why? People believe or don't as people not as their profession. The question is like asking do plumbers believe. Whether a person believes or not has no effect on the science.

A scientist could never use "God" in science because the word is so poorly defined. It apparently has as many meanings as people and large groups worldwide are fighting because of these different definitions.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Questioner wrote:

The question is like asking do plumbers believe.

If my plumber doesn't figure out what's wrong with my drainage system soon, we are going to have a serious prayer meeting.