Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dover: Whether Intelligent Design is Scie

Expand Messages
  • Alan C
    ... Yeah right. And because Carl Sagan outright said in a government-supported nationally televised network science program that The Cosmos is all there is,
    Message 1 of 91 , Mar 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      >>Susan: [edit] The issue at hand was government monuments to the 10 Commandments. That is endorsement of a particular religion.
      >>
      >>
      Yeah right. And because Carl Sagan outright said in a
      government-supported nationally televised network "science" program that
      "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will
      be", that makes atheistic materialism the national religion too.

      The difference was though that Carl Sagan was no doubt paid for his work
      out of government funds, whereas Judge Roy Moore did it with his own
      moneys anyway.

      Oh, and that Carl Sagan's religion is an anti-theistic philosophy and
      Moore's is a Christian one.

      >I have heard EXACTLY the same rationalization from people who
      >shoplift. "So what? They are rich, they aren't going to miss it. I'm
      >not doing any harm." In my book it's still theft.
      >
      >
      Very interesting. "Thou shalt not steal". If "Thou shalt worship the
      Lord Thy God" is "establishing a religion", then so is "Thou shalt not
      steal". They are part and parcel, a unified whole.

      So which are you? For or against stealing?

      >And establishing a state religion without actually going to the trouble of passing a law isn't a step up.
      >
      And banning it without a law is a step into the abyss.

      The Founders of the United States of America, however, the ones who
      signed the "Declaration of the Thirteen states of America", and then
      the signers of the Constitution, take issue (in their quotes still with
      us) with the cockamamie idea that acknowledging the reality of a God is
      equivalent to an "establishment of religion". "God" is recognized (you
      might say "enshrined") in the very Declaration FOUR times in very
      explicit fashion.

      And the Declaration makes very clear that the recognition of God
      includes the recognition of Him as Creator, and not only that, but that
      our natural rights (whether you call them "human" or "civil") do not
      come from legislation or constitutions but from that Creator. Your first
      amendment was brought to you by people who believed that, who signed
      their names to it. And that __includes__ Thomas Jefferson!

      And the signers of the Constitution always said it was a Christian
      nation. They pointed to the Bible as the source of their inspiration.

      For a "humanist" revolution you can contrast the French Revolution with
      the American one.

      NOTE THIS:
      There are some now who would ban any official government action based on
      any religious motive. The latest fashion among atheists is to claim that
      their atheism is "an absence of belief" rather than a belief, by which
      they mean the absence of any theistic belief.

      And yet they would claim that the judicially-enforced "absence of
      theistic belief" upon government "protects religion"!!! They would have
      government blithely and irrationally go about pretending that religion
      can teach government nothing about government!

      >And "humanistic" isn't an insult. Humanism has always been a powerful
      >force for good in the world and I'll always fight to protect it. I
      >have no wish to return to prehumanistic days when the infant death
      >rate was 50% and the only treatment for disease was a couple of "Our
      >Fathers" and a grave digger.
      >
      >
      "Humanism" gave us the French Revolution and fertilized the Bolshevik
      and Stalinist and Maoist and Khmer Rouge genocides, and its less brutal
      versions have slowed the European progress to a snail's pace. It gives
      us the new deceitful vocabulary term "politically correct", a euphemism
      for linguistic thought control.

      In another ironic twist on the reference to infant death and disease,
      Louis Pasteur, a Creationist, gets much of the credit for cutting down
      infant deaths. Orphanages around the world owe their history to
      Christians who are building the Kingdom of God on Earth.

      And Christians are the ones who founded the first hospitals.

      And Creationist scientists, crediting their belief in a creation-ordered
      world, gave science its push, when the Church and churches, and more
      importantly believers, finally shook off the shackles with which
      state-imposed science had held them back. (Although the "dark ages" has
      been exposed as a misnomer itself).

      Irony of ironies, back to the Charlemagne days, Irish and English monks
      brought books and learning back to the European continent, including
      hundreds and even thousands of Greek and Roman classics, snatched from
      oblivion by the Irish monks, legacy of the evangelistic firebrand Saint
      Patrick.

      Irony of ironies, while Baptists have to apologize for slavery today
      because they bought into the anti-Christian mercantile slavery trade
      while other fundamentalists fought it, St. Patrick's campaigning began
      the movement of shame that brought formal slavery to a virtual end
      within Europe for centuries until godless merchants resurrected it and
      slayed the missionary opposition along with indigenous populations.

      Yes, those dangerous fundamentalist Reconstructionists were the first on
      the scene with the first necessities after Katrina, but of course one
      would never know it.

      >If the government erects a big marble monument with "I am The Lord
      >They God, Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me." I take notice.
      >
      >
      When did the "government" do that? Which government?

      >Yeah, they are telling. They are the ones with the power. Anything
      >the government does is necessarily coercive.
      >
      Which is why a government pretense that no God had anything to do with
      Origins on the supposed basis of a "lack of [government] belief" is
      dangerous. Subtly so for an atheist, maybe, it might be hard to
      comprehend for them, but it is so nonetheless.

      > Do you think God is happy with coerced religious expression? Do you really think it pleases him?
      >
      >
      Theology, Susan? He hates coercion, or else you'd have been "coerced"
      already, obviously. The founding apostles and first followers of Christ,
      to this day, around the world, have died to spread their faith, while
      there are others who have killed to spread theist.

      >And why is there no big push to post the Bill of Rights in the public
      >schools and in courthouses? I have a feeling it's because expanding
      >rights is WAY not the project.
      >
      >
      There is, the Constitution Center does all it can, and a good friend of
      mine here even chaired the local version of Constitution Day and made a
      presentation with local school kids.

      It is an OUTRAGE that the actual __wording__ of the First Amendment is
      never quoted in all the stories. The phrase they always use is the
      "separation" phrase, a semantical trick, a sneaky one. Whenever the
      subject comes up in conversations, I always go back to the wording.

      Anti-religious fanatics and anti-creationists cannot get around the
      wording.

      One person or official is not a Congress, and one monument is not a law
      (whether it's a statue of a Greek goddess or the Ten Commandments), one
      person's act whatever his government or private position is not
      "coercion" unless it is coercion, one's own money is not taxes.

      -Alan
    • Alan C
      ... You re seeing a glimmer of the light of truth here amidst the darkness here. Like Isaac Newton could see, God created an ordered universe with a lot of
      Message 91 of 91 , Mar 19, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        >>Isaac Newton credited his drive for discoveries in science to
        >>Creationism, and credited God with his own inspiration.
        >>
        >>
        >yet he didn't assume that God pushed the planets around in their
        >orbits (did planets orbit by Newton's day?) He developed laws of
        >motion to explain it.
        >
        >
        You're seeing a glimmer of the light of truth here amidst the darkness
        here. Like Isaac Newton could see, God created an ordered universe with
        a lot of useful consistent behaviors.

        By the way, part of his conviction on this point, and I'm sure a driving
        motivation, was his definitive certainty that man's technology would
        skyrocket in the days leading up to what we refer to as "the last days"
        or the "End times". Some of this surety had to come from the first
        verses in Daniel 12 that obviously refer to today's interconnected world
        of transportation ("men shall run to and fro") and our recent-years
        explosion of knowledge ("and knowledge shall be increased").

        I read somewhere also FWIW that he figured that for fulfillment of the
        worldwide travel prophecy therein, man would come to invent a mode of
        transportation that would exceed 70 miles per hour. My speculation for
        his basis for that is that he would regard it as a threshold figure of
        some sort.

        >>Modern science and the giant leaps it has made in the past few centuries
        >>were incubated among creationist scientists, of which Isaac Newton is
        >>only the most famous example. There is the big long list that atheists
        >>and darwinists seem to forget every time the subject comes up, as if
        >>science all started with Darwin. In a big historic irony, Darwin might
        >>have been a peasant if creationism had not already developed a culture
        >>of scientific inquiry, except for the fact that he was among a few who
        >>desperately wanted to find an Origins solutions that did not involve
        >>Creation.
        >>
        >>
        >Most naturalists in Darwin's day had already noticed that species change through time. They were clueless as to why or how. Darwin figured the mechanism out. He assumed God created the ancestor organism.
        >
        >
        Maybe they did, but Darwin's ideas weren't even new, he just put them
        together in the book. Natural selection was a concept that creationist
        scientists brought to the table before Darwin, he just added his own
        speculations about the ancestor organism. It's what you get when you
        start imagining how things might have gotten that way if you just a
        priori reject the idea of a Creator. You don't even have to explicitly
        articulate such an a priori assumption, you just speculate. He did.
        That's what he came up with. You add "unbelief" (in Creation) to
        "speculation" and overlay it on top of the evidence, what else would
        they come up with for "how we got here"?

        However, as the majority biologist belief in Creation was already
        extant, and as natural selection as a concept had already been presented
        and accepted among them as a way that species remain adapted to their
        environment, "fit" if you prefer, as in fit for where they live, these
        considerations show that he only added some speculations to hypothesis
        to come up with non-theistic origins for all of life and a common ancestor.

        But the intellectual culture was apparently ready for it. There were
        other sociological and political groups that were already pushing at
        Christianity by that time, as other developments could show.

        >>Come darwinism, and when doctors find a human organ and cannot figure
        >>out a function for it, they declare it "vestigial", and thereby stunt
        >>medical advances for decades while thousands, maybe millions, of people
        >>pay for them to remove a perfectly functional organ.
        >>
        >>
        >More and more people are born without an appendix. It's a liability. It kills people.
        >
        >
        Doctors nowadays say no and rarely take it out. No doubt many still want
        to justify the money made on it. Kind of like so many Caesarians. There
        are long lists, including the appendix, several dozen, of formerly
        "vestigial" organs no longer. I think the pituitary was even one of
        them. How would you like to remove your own pituitary organ? Some women
        think their ovaries are a liability, and my mother died of cancer that
        began there, they said, but you can't call them a liability.

        >>Geneticists find DNA without a direct discernible (to them for the
        >>moment) expression, and declare that most DNA is "vestigial". Lo and
        >>behold, they had to backtrack on that one very quickly.
        >>
        >>
        >nah. Much DNA is non-coding (I think that's what they call it.) There's a lot of redundancy and noise in the system. Some DNA that was thought to be junk turned out not to be. Whoopie. It doesn't help you.
        >
        >
        Maybe you know more than geneticists, but go notice that for the reason
        you just gave they now refrain from calling any DNA vestigial.

        >>Pasteur did not say, "goddidit". His scientific work without a doubt has
        >>made the difference between living and dying for people in this list.
        >>
        >>
        >and your point is?
        >
        >
        You were the one trying to say that creationism stunts research, a
        ridiculous statement when compared to actual history where things count,
        and research helps us fight disease.

        >an interesting blog post on right wing Christians and their attitude about vaccination:
        >http://redsonja2000.blogspot.com/
        >
        >
        When darwinists come up with some new cheer chant for their side, or
        think they find something, what I do is actually try to consider what
        they're saying. I know what is behind the quote they put out there, and
        if you really look you can see the twist in the wording. Their attitude
        is one of caution. Of course anti-Christians and those who simply buy
        into whatever the official top-down line is will follow a Marxist right
        into a rose-colored path to dictatorship, just like they're doing in
        Venezuela today.

        The "disinhibition" factor, do you even know what it is? A former
        abortion clinic owner explained it this way, she said they were always
        delighted at an invitation to speak at schools about sexual safety
        practices, because they knew that instead of teen pregnancies going
        down, they always went up. Problem is also that the diseases also always
        went up, for the same reasons.

        As to vaccinations, there is another story about them. I disagree most
        sharply and emphatically with Hal Lindsey on some important views, but
        he says that when his first book came out some doctor friends of his
        told him he shouldn't put in that part about diseases going up, because
        we were conquering them, but that recently the same ones were calling
        him "vindicated' on the subject.

        >>Livingston was driven to explore new geographies in Africa, along with
        >>of course his drive to bring the good news of the Gospel to its inhabitants.
        >>
        >>
        >and that went *so* well. Susan
        >
        >
        Your scurrilous sarcasm belies your ignorance of the subject.

        =============================


        susan...>>*Of course* the government was (and is) interested in it.
        Knowledge of evolution has brought major advances in medicine and
        agriculture. Without an understanding of evolution, new flu vaccines
        would be impossible. Antibiotic use would be openly dangerous.
        Understanding ecology would be impossible.

        aec...>> Right, and I myself invented the Internet! ROTFL!

        ===============================

        susan...>> Evolution was outlawed in the early Soviet Union (it was too
        capitalistic) with devastating effects on their biological sciences.

        aec...>> This is baloney, an attempt to distance "evolution" from
        "Larmarckianism", in fact a "kissing cousin" of darwinism. Not quite as
        baffy as the Hopeful Monster, nonetheless. In fact it shows the
        devastation that government enforcement of one particular scientific
        theory on an ideological basis only wreaks havoc with science. Much
        better to have a true free exchange of ideas.

        ..And we have biotech and they don't have much visible biotech industry
        because permitting profit incentives for research, as long as it is
        coupled with the appropriate restraining and mostly voluntary moral
        ethic, is a powerhouse engine for research. I think though that these
        incentives are diminishing, because it is so very hard for one guy to do
        anything, and there are barriers. I met one scientists who had applied
        for a patent for an ambient-temperature superconductor, and never got
        it. A lot of Tesla's inventions have had "Classified" stamped on them
        and disappeared.

        =========

        Alan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.