OT: The words "under God" will remain in the Pledg

[Parker]

Yep, and as much as I disliked his policies, at least Reagan had the respect not to use politics to promote his personal religious views. Even Bush's father did not do so in the same degree as his son.

But I don't think Bush actually believes in his Christian principles any more strongly than his father or Reagan. His past hardly demonstrates he is a devout Christian. Bush jr's speeches reek of a calculated attempt by Rove and his strategists to use faith to win votes.

[pk500]

Exactly how does Bush's mentioning of God in his speeches affect the international community negatively?


On a side note I am always cautious of a politicians mention of God... If they are going to personalize their relationship with God, then it better be because they live it, and not just a tool to swing some popularity. Reagan spoke of God in his speeches and I wouldn't discount him at all for it... but most politicians suddenly make a big deal about going to church when their lifestyle shows no interest in it.

Because the international community is savvy enough to recognize the hypocrisy of Bush summoning God in his political speeches. After all, isn't our fight in the Middle East against radical religious fundamentalists, yet the U.S. has a religious fundamentalist in the Oval Office?

The irony certainly isn't lost on me.

Ron Reagan said it best at his father's burial last week in Simi Valley. He mentioned something like how his father had a deep, personal relationship with God but never forced it on the American people or made it a component of his policy. He mentioned that was the big difference between his dad's faith and that of other politicians, which I thought was a pretty cutting and appropriate swipe at Bush.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

Because the international community is savvy enough to recognize the hypocrisy of Bush summoning God in his political speeches. After all, isn't our fight in the Middle East against radical religious fundamentalists, yet the U.S. has a religious fundamentalist in the Oval Office?

I guess its all in the connotation that you take from it. To equate the Christianity that Bush claims as being a violent religion such as radical Islam is a stretch in my opinion. We keep hearing the terms "fundamentalists", "radical right-wing", etc.. a lot lately. I know there are communes and the such the practice ideals that many of us would deem as radical, but it seems that a lot of mainstream churches are getting lumped into these categories as well. What has the religious crowd done to America to be grouped and categorized with those who would do us harm?

[James_E]

"Do you really think "the Bang" could just so happen to get it right on the money?"

Theoretically, "the Bang" created an essentially infinite number of stars, and celestial bodies that orbit those stars. Given an infinite number of entities, the probability of "getting it right on the money" is pretty reasonable. By that same reasoning, I firmly believe "we are not alone".

If the earth were tilted slightly in a different direction, who is to say that life, albeit perhaps in a slightly different form than we know today, would not have existed here on earth anyway?

[skidmark]

If the earth were tilted slightly in a different direction, who is to say that life, albeit perhaps in a slightly different form than we know today, would not have existed here on earth anyway?

This hits the nail on the head with the word "life"

Evolution still offers no explanation of how matter became life.

[Leebo33]

Because the international community is savvy enough to recognize the hypocrisy of Bush summoning God in his political speeches. After all, isn't our fight in the Middle East against radical religious fundamentalists, yet the U.S. has a religious fundamentalist in the Oval Office?

I guess its all in the connotation that you take from it. To equate the Christianity that Bush claims as being a violent religion such as radical Islam is a stretch in my opinion. We keep hearing the terms "fundamentalists", "radical right-wing", etc.. a lot lately. I know there are communes and the such the practice ideals that many of us would deem as radical, but it seems that a lot of mainstream churches are getting lumped into these categories as well. What has the religious crowd done to America to be grouped and categorized with those who would do us harm?

*Insert OS-style clapping emoticon here*

[Parker]

"To equate the Christianity that Bush claims as being a violent religion such as radical Islam is a stretch in my opinion"

I don't believe there is such a religion as "radical Islam". It is simply called Islamic or Muslim. You could easily say there has been a "radical Christianity" with the number of people Christians have killed over the centuries in the name of religion. The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, just like the vast majority of Christians are not violent. There are many nations with dominant Muslim populations, and their murder rates are not as high as in America.

[Teal]

"Yep, and as much as I disliked his policies, at least Reagan had the respect not to use politics to promote his personal religious views"


What exactly has Bush said to get your skivvies in a bunch? That we ought to treat our neighbor like we'd like to be treated ourselves? That sound like bad advice to you? That freedom is God's gift to the world? You disagree? Ever heard him say that Jesus Christ is the only way Heaven, and that any who do not believe on His name are condemned to hell? No, you haven't. You've heard (if you've been listening, anyway) President Bush refer to the religion of Islam as a religion of peace (which a portion of it is) He refers to the Almighty in the vaguest of terms, except in the case of his eulogy of President Reagan, when he for the first time in my recollection (and trust me, I'm a news hound) referred to the Savior and Reagan seeing Him face to face. Reagan shared Bush's beliefs-is it wrong or out of place for him to refer to that in a time of grief to offer hope? Are you in any place to say?
Some of you say (ad nauseum) that Bush is a religious nut, and uses the bully pulpit to proseletyze. I challenge you to give specifics that have some meat to them. It's time to put up or shut up...

[Parker]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... toric+bush

That should get you started. As you can see, Bush's use of religious terms is not appreciated by supporters of all political parties.

"That we ought to treat our neighbor like we'd like to be treated ourselves?"

I have no problem with that. But there is no reason to refer to Christian rhetotic to say that.

"That freedom is God's gift to the world?"

That, I have a problem with. Not everyone believes in a single, all-powerful God in the way that Bush implies. Many Americans including me believe that freedom has nothing to do with any spiritual leader and has been earned by members of society through progress, not given to us.

[James_E]

For more theories and discussion of how simple "matter" became "life"...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... orgel.html

Long read. Kind of involved, but interesting.

Hell, I don't know what I believe. I was raised Catholic, but no longer believe in the God that I was taught as a child. I don't necessarily believe in evolution either. I'm still searching.

[pk500]

A pro-Bush piece indicating just how much religion influences his daily politics:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 030503.asp

Out,
PK

[Teal]

'"That we ought to treat our neighbor like we'd like to be treated ourselves?"

I have no problem with that. But there is no reason to refer to Christian rhetotic to say that."


"So, then, do unto others what you would have done unto you. The entire law and prophets hang on this." Matthew 7:12

It's called the golden rule, and it wasn't cooked up in some political or legal think tank. It was spoken by Jesus, so it is inherently of a Christian nature. Rhetoric has nothing to do with it. It also happens to be excellent advice no matter your stripe, but you have to swallow the fact that it originated from the Bible, hard as that may be...

"And, oh, by the way: Parker and I are no less of an American than anyone who disagrees with us."


PK: I don't remember anyone saying anything to the contrary.

[Teal]

"A pro-Bush piece indicating just how much religion influences his daily politics"


OK PK: Reading it now and...well, I'll be! He really IS a Christian, and-oh, what is this?! He actually ACTS like one! The nerve!!!

[Naples39]

'

It's called the golden rule, and it wasn't cooked up in some political or legal think tank. It was spoken by Jesus, so it is inherently of a Christian nature. Rhetoric has nothing to do with it. It also happens to be excellent advice no matter your stripe, but you have to swallow the fact that it originated from the Bible, hard as that may be...

You may want to take a look at some of the writings of Confucius, which came a good 4 or 5 centuries before Jesus was around. Still, I would doubt that even he was the first man to ever use this principle as I'd be willing to bet the notion is even older than that.

[skidmark]

For more theories and discussion of how simple "matter" became "life"...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... orgel.html

Long read. Kind of involved, but interesting.

Hell, I don't know what I believe. I was raised Catholic, but no longer believe in the God that I was taught as a child. I don't necessarily believe in evolution either. I'm still searching.

The author expounds on how RNA may have been key in allowing simple life to develop into complex life...

"Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic system, its development was probably the watershed event in the development of life."

No explanation of how an inanimate object spontaneously animated itself.

Theoretically, "the Bang" created an essentially infinite number of stars, and celestial bodies that orbit those stars. Given an infinite number of entities, the probability of "getting it right on the money" is pretty reasonable. By that same reasoning, I firmly believe "we are not alone".

That's the basic difference right there, you can look at the complexity and design of our explorable world and believe it points to a Master designer... otherwise you have to believe that it is the possible circumstance of a chance event that caused an infinite number of permutations of which we happen to be one of. The latter also allowing that one of those permutations just happened to give life to something that didn't have it beforehand.

[pk500]

"A pro-Bush piece indicating just how much religion influences his daily politics"


OK PK: Reading it now and...well, I'll be! He really IS a Christian, and-oh, what is this?! He actually ACTS like one! The nerve!!!

I'm a practicing Catholic, which also is Christian despite the best efforts of Protestants to monopolize the term, and I don't pray at work or include my relationship with God in my daily dealings with colleagues. I practice my faith in actions daily and words in daily, private prayer and at Mass Sundays, not words to others in my workplace or in public.

That makes me no less of a Christian than Bush, who uses his faith to curry votes.

>>>PK: I don't remember anyone saying anything to the contrary.<<<

Sadly, we now live in a country where disapproval of the current Administration and its policies are perceived by many as unpatriotic. So that's why I typed that.

Take care,
PK

[James_E]

I find the idea of "master creator" and "some chance that life just occured due to infinite permutations of matter" to be equally confounding. The idea of the Master creator yields the same basic question as the chance that life started on it's own.... ie you have to say "Ok, so I believe in the Master Creator... but where in the hell did the creator come from!"

[skidmark]

I'm a practicing Catholic, which also is Christian despite the best efforts of Protestants to monopolize the term

I would consider myself neither Catholic or Protestant... but would consider those both to be included in "Christian" in the vague use of term in regards to religion. I have seen Bush speak of his relationship to God many times, but I haven't seen enough myself to judge his mentioning of God as a vote ploy. While he does many things that I disagree with, I haven't seen enough to doubt his proposed sincerity... the nature of man comes into play as well as things that get slung upon him that are not his cause (and a good deal of this happens to all Presidents IMO).

disapproval of the current Administration and its policies are perceived by many as unpatriotic.

I think this is sadly some of the rhetoric being spewed by a few of the talk show hosts who are more republican than they are conservative... unfortunate

[skidmark]

I find the idea of "master creator" and "some chance that life just occured due to infinite permutations of matter" to be equally confounding. The idea of the Master creator yields the same basic question as the chance that life started on it's own.... ie you have to say "Ok, so I believe in the Master Creator... but where in the hell did the creator come from!"

Well, the Bible stance is that He just always was... "In the beginning God...". In fact time itself is just something created for the use of man, which is hard for a finite mind to consider...

Otherwise, you can play the same "well where did that come from" and "how long was it before all this happened" game with evolution... which goes back to my point that either view, at its core, is based on a belief. Taking either view into consideration in the study of earth is valid science.

There is an easy solution to this though... we just need a system of gigantic telescopes and gigantic mirrors, coupled with vehicles that can travel faster than light. If it takes 7 minutes for us to see the light of the sun, if we had a telescope looking at a mirror that was as far away as the sun is, everytime we looked into the telescope, we would see ourselves 14 minutes ago. Just take the mirror to a spot 3000 light years away without taking a light year to do it and we can see for ourselves.

[Parker]

It's arrogant indeed to claim that such a basic role of social conduct that people from a variety of religious backgrounds have come to accept is strictly a Christian principle. I once read that half the bible is mysticism, the other half is common sense.

[pk500]

>>>I think this is sadly some of the rhetoric being spewed by a few of the talk show hosts who are more republican than they are conservative... unfortunate<<<

Well, I think it's the reaction I have received from people both in person and in Internet forums when arguing the countless flaws of Bush's foreign policy. I'm branded as unpatriotic, un-American, an Al-Queda lover.

It has nothing to do with talk-show hosts for me and everything to do with my personal experience.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

Sorry about that PK, I wasn't trying to discredit you... just trying to point to what I believe is the major source of that thinking. People blindly following some misguided opinion of their favorite talk show rather than thinking for themselves... ironic, because those talk show's success comes from pointing out the following of mainstream media towards liberal thought.

That's why "Think... It's Patriotic" is such a good avatar - anyone just blindly following either party is succeptible to jumping onto the bandwagon of ideas that will destroy our liberties. The idea that all who are opposed to Bush's policies are traitors and terrorists themselves is the product of not thinking at all.

[Jared]

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not. What is the theory of creationism?

The "Theory of Creationism" is that our orgin is from a Creator.

But that's not a scientific theory. You can't do experiments that test this. And it doesn't work in a way that science works. It doesn't make predictions about what the fossil record will be like when fossils are excavated. And it's not testable.

Scientific theories are by definition tentative, in that there is always the possibility that they could be wrong inherent in the theory (rejecting the null hypothesis). There is no "null hypothesis" in creationism that can be rejected or tested. I don't even think creationism is testable...saying that "God made it" can't be experimentally tested. Hence it falls outside of the realm of science.

This is not to say that there is no Creator (as evolution isn't incompatible with a higher being). The scientific method, however can't and shouldn't be used to test things like creationism, the existence of God, etc. If someone says "Science has proven that there isn't a God/creator", they're dead wrong. Same as if someone says "Science has proven that there is a God/creator". They're wrong too.

For it to be considered a theory (in scientific terms), it needs to be testable, falsifiable, and able to to make predictions about future evidence. Creationism doesn't do any of that.

So when we study things and see evidence of an order and design to them that is not science? Look at how complex a blade of grass is... I think the study of that blade of grass and how its intricate design points to a Creator rather than a cataclismic accident is valid scientific study. Predictions toward future evidence? Creationism as a whole points to a world that is "winding down" (due to the fall of man), Evolution as a whole points to a world that is constantly evolving and progressing... Those are both predictions about future events.

Seeing order in a blade of grass is just observation. And saying that it's design points to a Creator is an opinion. BUT that can't be scientifically tested.

And regarding predictions, I'm talking about specific predictions, not general ones.

(Also, it's a fallacy to say that "Evolution as a whole points to a world that is constantly...progressing". The theory of evolution has nothing to say about progress...it's simply that organisms change and these changes often take advantage of the environment. So if the earth suddenly went through a cataclysmic Ice Age (say, -50 degree weather), the only creatures that would survive would be ones that can currently handle extreme cold or evolve to handle extreme cold. These would likely be microbes that can live through this and/or other animals that evolved mechanisms to deal with it. Progress? Likely not. But it is still definitely evolution.)

Maybe you can help me here, but how do the official "radiometric" dating methods work. I have seen them actually explained in a very few instances, but nothing that really gives a definitive scientific answer to how they determine how they know a reading of "70" or whatever = 4 billion years.

http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/ ... .Ch.r.html

That link has a brief explanation. But to make it briefer....

Basically rocks have certain elements in them. A certain type of rock should have a certain amount of a certain type of element in it. That element has a specific half-life, where it takes x years for half of a sample of a certain element to decay into it's daughter element. Different elements have different half-lives.

By looking at the half-lives of different elements, you can get a general idea as to how old the rock is. These half-life ratings are usually pretty consistent. For example, the deeper you go down into the rock, the older the rocks are by ratings from elemental half-lives. Also, if you look at the half-lives from multiple elements, they are usually in register.

[quote

The fossil record shows a pretty gradual increase from less complex to more complex creatures as you move up (i.e. closer to our time) in the fossil record.

No it doesn't. Evolutionary speculation shows this, not the fossil record. Paleontologists have found that major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time.
[/quote]

They do? There are a few periods of a great increase in species in the fossil record which coincide with major changes in the environment (the idea behind "punctuated equilibrium"). But for the most part, changes are gradual over time. And the abrupt appearances of some animal groups doesn't necessarily support the Biblical account of creation, unless the order and frequency of these appearances strictly coincide with the order in which the animals were said to have been created.

If the flood caused the organization of the fossil record, then there should be one mass grave of all sorts of animals that are mixed.

Nearly 78% of the earth is covered with water. That means 22% of the land that is left would be the place where a percentage of what died in a worldwide flood would settle. The oceans are vast and largely unexplored, but there has been evidence of the remains of sea creatures on land. In fact there is a hill just outside of my town which is known as "sharktooth hill" for all the shark teeth they've found.

[/quote]

When speaking of mass grave, I was talking about in depth in the fossil record, not an actual area. And yes, there's evidence of sea creatures on land...but that isn't evidence for the Biblical account of the Flood. That just means that different parts of the world were underwater before, which is consistent with fluctuations in global climate.

Evidence for a global flood would likely have to include a shallow layer (in the geologic strata) dated very recently (6,000 years ago) that has tons and tons of dead animals. And there's no evidence (that I know of) that supports this.

[Jared]

"Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief"

Zeppo, I have a theory: my theory is that there is an order and system to the world that can not be explained away by any tenet of evolutionary thought. What does that leave us with, then? I'm not sure, but there are definitely testable criteria to scientifically legitimize creationism. Did you know that the earth's tilt is so precise that were it to tilt just a couple of degrees one way, we'd burn up, and another way, we'd freeze? Do you really think "the Bang" could just so happen to get it right on the money?

How is this "testable criteria"? What does this have to do with the scientific method? It's true that if our planet was tilted one way or another we wouldn't exist. But how is that "proof" that there is a Creator? It's just an opinion. And it's an opinion that you are entitled to. But it's definitely not science.

If so, you've got alot more faith than I do- I gotta believe Somebody did it. Evolution,BTW< came about because of Darwin's beliefs. Every theory begins as a belief. If he didn't believe in it, he never would have tested it. Evolution is not driven today by a set of proven hypotheses, it is driven by a belief system. There has been not one proven theory in the whole of evolution. It is driven by blind faith...sound familiar??

No...every theory does not begin as a belief. They come from observations, and then an idea comes from that. From there, it's tested. Darwin probably didn't "believe" that evolution was true (if he ever did) until he documented lots and lots of evidence for it. As evidence for something increases, that's when people start to "believe" it (such as evidence for the existence of gravity). Scientists often test things they don't "believe" in. That's why they test theories...to see if they hold up or not. If they don't, then they try and come up another one that works with the data, until they get as close as possible to being right.

And evolution IS driven by a set of hypotheses. Show me how evolution isn't driven by this.

Also, it's true that there hasn't been one proven theory in the whole of evolution? But it is IMPOSSIBLE to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory as "false".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

And some more on theory (since lots of people don't know about what constitutes a theory...)

Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the words theory and hypothesis. In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

[Leebo33]

Hell, I don't know what I believe. I was raised Catholic, but no longer believe in the God that I was taught as a child. I don't necessarily believe in evolution either. I'm still searching.

I'm with you. I'm still searching for an answer. I find it amazing that people can truly believe one way or the other. I tend to lean towards a belief in God because there is no way I can believe in evolution. Plus my spiritual side cannot believe we are here by accident. I just can't handle the math and the odds against evolution happening. I'm sure it's a small part of the answer, but it just doesn't answer enough for me. The odds are a lot less that a tornado would go through a Home Depot and accidentally build a house.

Maybe I am just too skeptical concerning science. They still can't tell me for sure if a low fat or low carb diet is more beneficial...lol. And there are just so many things much more simple (cancer and other diseases, for instance) that we can't solve. I just can't be that quick to accept what amounts to a theory no matter how you define it.