Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
theres an old game called bible adventures... where you throw baby jesus... or it could be baby moses as your weapon.
http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-19.htm
http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-19.htm
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php
****ING AWESOME.
its not directly a religious thing, but i can pretty much be sure that it will be used at least 50% of the time with religious bull****.
****ING AWESOME.
its not directly a religious thing, but i can pretty much be sure that it will be used at least 50% of the time with religious bull****.
Last edited:
Well, the bill has a ways to go before it's official, and from what i'm reading, it probably won't make it. There would way too many lawsuits.bobtheking said:
kinda sorta on topic
well, my nephew/roommate is in our hometown's local news because he asked that the ten commandments be taken down from public ground (right in front of the courthouse) and it's the hot issue in the paper so the paper asked readers to write in and speak their minds, and out of about 20 letters only 2 agreed with him, the others wrote a bunch of atrocious, if-there-is-a-god-why-would-he-allow-these-people-to-be-so-stupid crap that makes me want to hate america and people in general, or go on lithium. if i have the time maybe ill transcribe some of the letters.
well, my nephew/roommate is in our hometown's local news because he asked that the ten commandments be taken down from public ground (right in front of the courthouse) and it's the hot issue in the paper so the paper asked readers to write in and speak their minds, and out of about 20 letters only 2 agreed with him, the others wrote a bunch of atrocious, if-there-is-a-god-why-would-he-allow-these-people-to-be-so-stupid crap that makes me want to hate america and people in general, or go on lithium. if i have the time maybe ill transcribe some of the letters.
Last edited:
I can see the reasoning in that bill, but suing lecturers for expressing their own views seems ironic and counter-productive.
oosyxxx said:
If it makes you feel any better, remember that the kind of people who write into papers are probably the most opinioniated and bigoted ones. But yeah, it pisses me off too.
i cannot. the vast majority of professors will respect your opinion, if you can justify it. this bill is designed to protect people from having to justify their opinions, which is partly what college/academia is about. if you can't handle your views being challeneged, don't go to college.Stilgar said:
I can understand a lecturer using the socratic method to analyse a students views, but I can also easily imagine that not all lecturers are saints, and that attitudes could become abusive and belligerant given the right encouragment (by lecturers) which is wrong. I suppose it is better not to bring restrictive govermental control into an educational instituion, but there should atleast be a decent complaints system and a baseline respect for radical views (maybe these are in place already, I dont know)
btw have you actually read the bill? I'm guessing that the article is trying to make it sound as confrontational as is reasonably possible.
btw have you actually read the bill? I'm guessing that the article is trying to make it sound as confrontational as is reasonably possible.
As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design is a philosophy and doesn't really need to get its own chapter in science texts.
otoh, I also don't think science should be used to push philosophical naturalism. I think science should just present the facts and stay out of the existential "why".
That said, the sooner people wake up from the young-earth idea, the better.
otoh, I also don't think science should be used to push philosophical naturalism. I think science should just present the facts and stay out of the existential "why".
That said, the sooner people wake up from the young-earth idea, the better.
of course, i've had one like this already myself. are bad teachers a new thing? i would imagine most places, like the two colleges i go to currently (crappy community college/remote campus), have a teacher review form that is anonymous.Stilgar said:
its here if you want to see it: http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/actions(boxattop)/Floridapage/Floridahousebill837.htm
i agree with W0RF 100%.
The whole "earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with humans, all fossil research is wrong" type of creationism.Stilgar said:
There are plenty of people who believe in a God who made us and the universe, that has nothing to do with how old the earth is. Just like God didn't just disappear when we figured out the earth was round, or that our solar system is heliocentric, etc.
This post and this post have some Qs and As regarding some research I did into young-earth vs. old-earth theories, mostly from a cosmology standpoint because I understand earth sciences better than life sciences, and I didn't want to speak too much from ignorance.
Don't take it as a complete scientific thesis on the origin of the universe, but a look into some of the questions about young-earth ideas: was the universe made in 6 days, where does the idea of "6,000 years" come from, what about "flood geology", how does Genesis compare to other religious creation stories, and so forth. It's general information from a general guy.
"As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design is a philosophy and doesn't really need to get its own chapter in science texts."
This is what was irking me about the Science vs Religion thread, I just didn't voice my concern so succinctly :L
Oh, I also agree with worf
This is what was irking me about the Science vs Religion thread, I just didn't voice my concern so succinctly :L
Oh, I also agree with worf
count yourself lucky, it took me a 26-page blowout on this same topic to reach that same conclusion.
So by succinct, you surely must mean "he got all the long-ass posts out of his system on the other thread"
So by succinct, you surely must mean "he got all the long-ass posts out of his system on the other thread"
We actually employed The Socratic Method in this thread to some degree. At least most of the evolutionists tried to use logic and reason to test the varsity of claims made by bible folk.
As far as the article is concerned, this is what I’d like to address:
“Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.”
I don’t think public ridicule is right. However, you would think if a person formed an opinion about something, they should be able to explain why they came to that opinion and it should hold up under scrutiny. I mean, if a person believes in the easter bunny, they better have a good reason. Just saying, “The easter bunny is real because I say so.” is not really a valid reason.
This doesn’t help prepare the student for the real world, because in the real world a senator can’t say I think we should pass this bill just because I say so. People want valid reasons why the bill should be passed and these reasons should hold up under fire. Going by the quote above, if the senator was forced to explain their theories as to why the bill should be passed they might be justified in suing if this was college.
That’s screwed up.
I believe making the student think about their decisions is a step to maturity. As children, we can get away with “Johnny is a do-do head because I say so.” But when we grow up, we need to move on and be able to explain why we believe this or that. This helps the person be truthful with themselves, and really, if the self-evaluation leads to a more enlightened way of thinking, that’s a good thing. You shouldn’t be afraid of discovering the truth; you should welcome the opportunity. If your reasoning is strong, it should hold up after close evaluation.
I can see this leading to a problem for religious people just as it has in this thread. For example, what if during the beginning of the school year the professor handed out a questionnaire to the class? The questionnaire was my marble mind experiment. Not the one with the scientists and the religious leader, but the one with the kids in the neighborhood. Let’s say all the students but one reasoned through the question and decide to go with the nerd. Then the professor and the students ask this single student why they picked the neighborhood hero instead of the nerd and they say something like because I used to be the neighborhood hero, or I don’t like nerds, or whatever. After awhile, this person would, or should realize that they look pretty stupid and they don’t really have a good reason, and hopefully they would change their mind. This person might sue the school, but I don’t know how far they would get.
Then let’s say midway through the semester the professor hands out Qualthwar’s Marble Mind Experiment again, but this time it’s the one with the 50 scientists and the 50,000 religious followers. The questionnaire is handed out because the class is about ready to start talking about religion and evolution, etc. Many, if not all, of the people will see the similarities between the first innocent questionnaire and this one. But let’s now say that 1 out of 10 now side with the religious followers instead of the scientists. Now we have 1 in 10 people potentially suing the school because they are persuaded to explain why they side with the 50,000 religious people.
As far as the article is concerned, this is what I’d like to address:
“Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.”
I don’t think public ridicule is right. However, you would think if a person formed an opinion about something, they should be able to explain why they came to that opinion and it should hold up under scrutiny. I mean, if a person believes in the easter bunny, they better have a good reason. Just saying, “The easter bunny is real because I say so.” is not really a valid reason.
This doesn’t help prepare the student for the real world, because in the real world a senator can’t say I think we should pass this bill just because I say so. People want valid reasons why the bill should be passed and these reasons should hold up under fire. Going by the quote above, if the senator was forced to explain their theories as to why the bill should be passed they might be justified in suing if this was college.
That’s screwed up.
I believe making the student think about their decisions is a step to maturity. As children, we can get away with “Johnny is a do-do head because I say so.” But when we grow up, we need to move on and be able to explain why we believe this or that. This helps the person be truthful with themselves, and really, if the self-evaluation leads to a more enlightened way of thinking, that’s a good thing. You shouldn’t be afraid of discovering the truth; you should welcome the opportunity. If your reasoning is strong, it should hold up after close evaluation.
I can see this leading to a problem for religious people just as it has in this thread. For example, what if during the beginning of the school year the professor handed out a questionnaire to the class? The questionnaire was my marble mind experiment. Not the one with the scientists and the religious leader, but the one with the kids in the neighborhood. Let’s say all the students but one reasoned through the question and decide to go with the nerd. Then the professor and the students ask this single student why they picked the neighborhood hero instead of the nerd and they say something like because I used to be the neighborhood hero, or I don’t like nerds, or whatever. After awhile, this person would, or should realize that they look pretty stupid and they don’t really have a good reason, and hopefully they would change their mind. This person might sue the school, but I don’t know how far they would get.
Then let’s say midway through the semester the professor hands out Qualthwar’s Marble Mind Experiment again, but this time it’s the one with the 50 scientists and the 50,000 religious followers. The questionnaire is handed out because the class is about ready to start talking about religion and evolution, etc. Many, if not all, of the people will see the similarities between the first innocent questionnaire and this one. But let’s now say that 1 out of 10 now side with the religious followers instead of the scientists. Now we have 1 in 10 people potentially suing the school because they are persuaded to explain why they side with the 50,000 religious people.
That depends who you ask. Arch Bishop Usher determined that the world was created in 4004 BC, on October 26, at 9 in the morning. (i think that's right) I don’t know what time zone, though. But many religious people believe in Adam and Eve and their children and Noah and all that jazz. The Arch Bishop worked through all the stories of the bible and determined that if so-and-so lived for 900 years, and adam and eve had these children and they had children and this happened as the bible says…. the earth is now about 6000 years old.W0RF said:
So it does have something to do with god if you speak with people who believe in the bible, because the bible was the basis for the 6000-year-old claim. Unless you can show me people who think adam and eve were created 4 billion years ago or so.
If you check the posts I linked above, you'll see that I found the Usher claim is based on faulty geneological data that doesn't account for outside information, but relies entirely on Biblical text. This is no more accurate than trying to catalog the animals using the Bible as a zoological text (no mention of giraffes, for example). When the data is properly extrapolated, the history of mankind is traced back somewhere in the neighborhood of ~50,000 years, which is consistent with Y chromosome ancestry findings.QUALTHWAR said:
Adam and Eve did not have to be born 4 billion years ago, unless you assume God created them immediately after forming the earth. That doesn't make much sense considering that also assumes he takes 16 billion years to make the rest of the universe. Again, check the posts, there's a lot of info there about the origin of the 6000 year claim, about what the Bible does (and more importantly, does NOT) say about origins, about why the Bible should not be a literal scientific text, nor science a religious thesis, and much more. And it's only a fraction of what I learned.
Last edited: