I Think I Finally Agree With The ACLU

[Tonio]

Why? They don't. You are one of the ones that insults Christians.

I wasn't trying to insult Christians or any other believers, and I'm sorry it came across that way.

My point is, I see a huge difference between what the individiual believes and what an organization or authority wants the individual to believe. My perception (probably incorrect) was that Vrai and Larry were lumping the two together.

 

[Tonio]

Who said anything about Christianity?

By implication, religion includes Christianity.

Nobody is telling you, an American, what to believe or not to believe. You are free to worship as you see fit - or not, as the case may be.

I see evangelism in general as going against that principle. But more to the point, I wish every country adhered to that principle. It should have been America, and not Italy, where Abdur Rahman received his exile, since America has always been the country where people took up sanctuary away from religious persecution.

 

[dck4shrt]

Why? They don't. You are one of the ones that insults Christians.

I came to know the love of God through reasoning. I don't think many Christians are "mindless sheep". Many Christians have advanced college degrees.

Darwin, born 1809, was 22 when he sailed on the Beagle in 1831 and did his observations on Galapagos Is. in 1835 that led him to write "The Origin of Species" published in 1859. I find it amazing that so many people trust their eternal fate to observations made by one person in their mid 20s. That seems unreasoning to me.

Observations made by one person? Since when is Darwin the only person to have observed, studied, researched, rationalized, reasoned, synthesized, and concluded, that species evolve?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Observations made by one person? Since when is Darwin the only person to have observed, studied, researched, rationalized, reasoned, synthesized, and concluded, that species evolve?

Who's theory is cited? Who wrote "The Origin of Species"?

 

[dck4shrt]

Who's theory is cited? Who wrote "The Origin of Species"?

Do you think evolutionary theory is based solely on his work? and not a vast, conclusive body of knowledge and work that has been undertaken since his days on the Beagle? Seems very unlike science to just throw up their hands and conclude that he must have been right. For sure, it's gone through the rigors, more so than most theories.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Do you think evolutionary theory is based solely on his work? and not a vast, conclusive body of knowledge and work that has been undertaken since his days on the Beagle? Seems very unlike science to just throw up their hands and conclude that he must have been right. For sure, it's gone through the rigors, more so than most theories.

Who is quoted? Who's name do you see in little fish with feet?

People that want to "do their own thing" do not want God to be real. If they admitted He is real, then they would have to realize that there are eternal consequences to be faced.

I've been around this block too many times with too many people. I'm not going around it again with you. Just search if you want to find my position. It is stated plainly in the Religion Forum.

 

[Larry Gude]

Point taken...

I wasn't trying to insult Christians or any other believers, and I'm sorry it came across that way.

My point is, I see a huge difference between what the individiual believes and what an organization or authority wants the individual to believe. My perception (probably incorrect) was that Vrai and Larry were lumping the two together.

...and, yes, I was not lumping anything. We are, more than anything else, a Christian nation, at the very least in founding, as the major guiding principle.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The laws of nature entitle us and nature has a master; God. We are created (not born or evolved) and we are endowed by our creator.

That does not require or demand obedience to that God or to give his teachings or otherwise force or coerce. It is presented as self evident. As nature often runs amok, so may you as you see fit, your natural place in the order will not change based on your conduct or faith or whatever. It's a great organizing principle, greater than any mere King.

 

[dck4shrt]

Who is quoted? Who's name do you see in little fish with feet?

People that want to "do their own thing" do not want God to be real. If they admitted He is real, then they would have to realize that there are eternal consequences to be faced.

I've been around this block too many times with too many people. I'm not going around it again with you. Just search if you want to find my position. It is stated plainly in the Religion Forum.

I do find where you state that evolution has its basis in faith, like religions do. This is where you are wrong. Evolution is not based on faith. Rather, it is based on observational evidence, reason, experimentation, and research. It has been put through the rigors of science. Faith based religions have not been put through these rigors because they are based on faith and beliefs, which are not testable as hypotheses.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I do find where you state that evolution has its basis in faith, like religions do. This is where you are wrong. Evolution is not based on faith. Rather, it is based on observational evidence, reason, experimentation, and research. It has been put through the rigors of science. Faith based religions have not been put through these rigors because they are based on faith and beliefs, which are not testable as hypotheses.

Last reply to you on this topic.

I am not wrong in my view. Those that believe in Darwin and the related works of fiction are wrong.

Rock A is so old because they contain fossil B. Fossil B is so old because it is found in rock A. Circular reasoning; proves nothing.

Louis Pasture proved you can't get fruit flies from rotting meat. Darwin wants you to believe that all life came from molecules that got zapped by something and crawled out of the sea.

Thermodynamics says that all organized systems tend toward disorganization. Evolution teaches that if I pile a bunch of lumber, nails, blocks, mortar, shingles, and stuff in my yard, a house will eventually build itself. That takes faith.

 

[dck4shrt]

Last reply to you on this topic.

I am not wrong in my view. Those that believe in Darwin and the related works of fiction are wrong.

Rock A is so old because they contain fossil B. Fossil B is so old because it is found in rock A. Circular reasoning; proves nothing.

Louis Pasture proved you can't get fruit flies from rotting meat. Darwin wants you to believe that all life came from molecules that got zapped by something and crawled out of the sea.

Thermodynamics says that all organized systems tend toward disorganization. Evolution teaches that if I pile a bunch of lumber, nails, blocks, mortar, shingles, and stuff in my yard, a house will eventually build itself. That takes faith.

In one fell swoop you've managed to take down the pillars of biology, paleonotology, and geology. I applaud you.
You see, evolution is fact. The only thing in question is the exact mechanism of its action. The fact of evolution is the amazing amount of empirical data available in the natural world. The theory of evolution is a set of ideas that structure and make sense of that data. Scientists know how to separate this fact from theory quite well. As such, the evolutionist does not make a claim of perpetual truth like a creationist does. They are willing and able to reinterpret their theory when new data presents itself. This is why evolution is taught in a science classroom, and creationism is taught in a religion classroom.
The theory of gravity and the facts of gravity are a prime example. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's theory, but the facts of gravity remained the same, objects still fall towards earth. The facts are that evolution does occur, species change over time. The theory centers on the question of how this actually occurs.

 

[Tonio]

We are, more than anything else, a Christian nation, at the very least in founding, as the major guiding principle.

Although the Founders were influenced by both Christianity and Deism, I think it's a stretch to say America was founded on Christian principles. Too many Americans talk about Christianity and Americanism as though they're the same thing, and I think that's dangerous.

That does not require or demand obedience to that God or to give his teachings or otherwise force or coerce. It is presented as self evident. As nature often runs amok, so may you as you see fit, your natural place in the order will not change based on your conduct or faith or whatever. It's a great organizing principle, greater than any mere King.

The flaw in that idea is that the "natural place in the order" is subjective, like all religious belief. Too many religious think they, and not a deity or deities, know what other people's "natural place in the order" is or should be. Many religions in Africa and the Middle East place women in a horrible, degrading status, claiming that this is what their deities want. Of course, the believers probably placed women in that position and then used religion to justify it, but the effect on the women is the same.

 

[Larry Gude]

Come on...

I think it's a stretch to say America was founded on Christian principles. Too many Americans talk about Christianity and Americanism as though they're the same thing, and I think that's dangerous.

It is totally accurate to say we were founded on Christian principles and if that is simply to scary to contemplate, how about 'we were founded on religious, ie, existence of a higher power' principles. Being an American and a Christian is NOT one in the same then nor now nor ever. Religious freedom, including not worshiping, is in the found documents. How is this dangerous, at all?

The flaw in that idea is that the "natural place in the order" is subjective, like all religious belief.

No it is not subjective. It simply IS and you, by virtue of religious freedom, get to decide what that means.

Too many religious think they, and not a deity or deities, know what other people's "natural place in the order" is or should be.

So what? You think they don't know. How is that any different? Regardless of the past and what that may or may not have meant to people of differing or non faith, the fact is that today, like slavery existed then, no one can impose either on you. With all our flaws we have still grown true to the founders in many respects.

Many religions in Africa and the Middle East place women in a horrible, degrading status, claiming that this is what their deities want. Of course, the believers probably placed women in that position and then used religion to justify it, but the effect on the women is the same

When your rule of law is based on individual strength you do not get protection of minorities or the weaker. I say again, we've grown.

 

[Tonio]

Being an American and a Christian is NOT one in the same then nor now nor ever. Religious freedom, including not worshiping, is in the found documents. How is this dangerous, at all?

As you say, we've grown and become closer to the Founders' concept of religious freedom. There was a time in America when Jews and Catholics regularly had their patriotism questioned because of their religious faith. Early in the last century, some Northern cities had a (comparatively) mild anti-Semitic form of Jim Crow where Jews were locked out of many neighborhoods and public accommodations.

You think they don't know. How is that any different? Regardless of the past and what that may or may not have meant to people of differing or non faith, the fact is that today, like slavery existed then, no one can impose either on you.

Part of this is personal for me -- I'm disturbed by the concept of evangelism, because evangelists want me to conform to what they want, not what I want. Sure, I can tell them to mind their own damn business, but they shouldn't have the desire to change me in the first place.

And part of it for me is national -- I think it's possible that the growth you mentioned could actually be reversed. I worry sometimes that faced with an external threat like terrorism, too many Americans might be willing to give up part of their religious freedom for the sake of security. They might listen to some fearmongering demagogue who seeks power by manipulating their religious beliefs. Of course that might sound paranoid. Maybe I've been reading too much about Christian Dominionism.

Still, I see the all-Catholic town in Florida as partly motivated by insecurity. I suspect many of the participants believe that they will be safe if their neighbors and their local government conform to the same religion. I don't think that will provide security, because people continue to lie, cheat and steal whether or not they belong to a particular religion. It's not about the belief system, it's about the person.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hell...

I question liberal Jews and Catholics and Christians patriotism all the time!

[

 

[Bustem' Down]

I question liberal Jews and Catholics and Christians patriotism all the time!

[

Sweet, I'm not religeous or patriotic so I'm off your radar.

 

[Larry Gude]

A ha!

Sweet, I'm not religeous or patriotic so I'm off your radar.

YOU are on a special, super secret radar designed to hunt down those of undetermined status!

 

[Bustem' Down]

YOU are on a special, super secret radar designed to hunt down those of undetermined status!

Not with my special foil hat!

 

[Larry Gude]

Damn...

Not with my special foil hat!

...our mind control emitor/remote control and can opener can NOT penetrate your technology!

 

[tirdun]

Rock A is so old because they contain fossil B. Fossil B is so old because it is found in rock A. Circular reasoning; proves nothing.

A rock is "so old" because dating has proven it so old. Fossils only found in that layer are thus the same age, and if they are found in a similar layer somewhere else, the layer can be dated without expensive tests unless there is a reason to do otherwise. There is no circular reasoning.

Louis Pasture proved you can't get fruit flies from rotting meat. Darwin wants you to believe that all life came from molecules that got zapped by something and crawled out of the sea.

And creationists believe dust got zapped and crawled up as a man with no belly button. See? I can overgeneralize too!

Thermodynamics says that all organized systems tend toward disorganization.

Thermodynamics says no such thing. Your ignorance is astonishing. The second law defines entropy, which is a feature of ENERGY. Entropy states that organization does not occur without energy being lost. Evolution requires the expenditure of energy, and there are clear uses of thermodynamics in how fast evolution can occur and in what ways. I guess you can cherry pick which sciences you believe without any study, but at least get the facts straight.

Evolution teaches that if I pile a bunch of lumber, nails, blocks, mortar, shingles, and stuff in my yard, a house will eventually build itself. That takes faith.

That statement is a lie. A willfull presentation of a falsehood as fact.

If you wish to argue evolution, I suggest you learn something about it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

A rock is "so old" because dating has proven it so old. Fossils only found in that layer are thus the same age, and if they are found in a similar layer somewhere else, the layer can be dated without expensive tests unless there is a reason to do otherwise. There is no circular reasoning.

And creationists believe dust got zapped and crawled up as a man with no belly button. See? I can overgeneralize too!

Thermodynamics says no such thing. Your ignorance is astonishing. The second law defines entropy, which is a feature of ENERGY. Entropy states that organization does not occur without energy being lost. Evolution requires the expenditure of energy, and there are clear uses of thermodynamics in how fast evolution can occur and in what ways. I guess you can cherry pick which sciences you believe without any study, but at least get the facts straight.

That statement is a lie. A willfull presentation of a falsehood as fact.

If you wish to argue evolution, I suggest you learn something about it.

The circular reasoning comes from a geologist saying a certain Cambrian period rock layer is 543 million to 490 million years old because trilobites are found in it. A paleontologist says some trilobites are 543 million to 490 million years old because they are found in a Cambrian period rock layer. That is circular reasoning.

Of course evolution teaches nothing about a house, but the premise of spontaneous life from nothing but primordial soup is as absurd as a house building itself from the raw materials in my opinion. It is called allegory.

Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is about energy. Of course energy and matter are related unless you don't believe in E=mc^2.

I think it is your ignorance that is showing.

And I don't want to argue, debate, or otherwise discuss evolution. I am not much into fiction.