Take THAT religious nutters!

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by trev
Your replies are ignoring the evidence...

OK, for fun, assume for a minute that I'm willing to believe that there was dragon/dinosaur in Europe in 800 AD.

There are, I don't know, like, thousands of dinosaur fossils in museums. Clear evidence that they were quite numerous. So, if dinosaurs only became extinct 1000 years ago, why is it that only one or two dudes in recorded history bothered to write about gigantic reptiles? No frieses or mosaics or sculptures showing them? No dragonbone weapons or jewelry? No dragonskin tunics? I mean, if they only had 6000 years to be spread out into, where were they hiding?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
I mean, if they only had 6000 years to be spread out into, where were they hiding?

I killed them.

More seriously, you likely see their decendents around you everyday.

[Blaupanzer]

Dio Cassius is not the only writer in the period from Alexander to the fall of Rome to mention "great beasts" in the upper Nile that do not conform to what we now know to inhabit the earth. Because these things are large doesn't make them dinosaurs, however. Nor do a select set of reportings, mostly of third hand or even more distant origins make the reports true. This goes as well for dragon slayers. The depictions of St George, the most famous of the dragon slayers, show him killin a beast not a lot bigger than his own horse. This would be large for a Kimodo Dragon-type creature, but not outlandish. As to the 120 foot length reported by Cassius, what dinosaur would fit the description of a 120-foot serpent. Perhaps the narrator or his sources exagerrated a bit? Especially since whatever they encountered killed some soldiers, the tendency might be to enlarge the creature in the retellings.

This does not mean that we actually know what these exploring groups did encounter. The possible survival of a single species into the ancient period is not proof of anything other than the adaptability of that species in the evolutionary chain. Neither ID nor creationism gain evidentiary support on the basis of a single species. Of course ID is not actually a theory -- it is a disputation, thus neither needing new evidence nor providing actual explanation. Sigh.

[Elok]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
OK, for fun, assume for a minute that I'm willing to believe that there was dragon/dinosaur in Europe in 800 AD.

There are, I don't know, like, thousands of dinosaur fossils in museums. Clear evidence that they were quite numerous. So, if dinosaurs only became extinct 1000 years ago, why is it that only one or two dudes in recorded history bothered to write about gigantic reptiles? No frieses or mosaics or sculptures showing them? No dragonbone weapons or jewelry? No dragonskin tunics? I mean, if they only had 6000 years to be spread out into, where were they hiding?

I'm not taking this dude's side or anything, but to be fair, there's the central African cryptid known as mokele-mbembe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mokele-mbembe

[Lord Avalon]

Perhaps C. XX PEDES (circa 20 feet) was mistaken for CXX PEDES (120 feet).

[DirtyMartini]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Blaupanzer

Dude. I know the explaination. I want to know what Zanark and trev have to say on the subject. I'm interested.

@Elok -- see, there you go being all well-informed again.

[Blaupanzer]

I was responding to Trev. Not baiting him, as some others are, but presenting evidence at least as credible as the evidence he was presenting. The fact, if it is, that a dinosaur made it into the era of writing does not mean all dinosaurs lived in the last 6,000 years.

I think scientists often leave the public with a sense that the choice is either/or after a certain date. In fact, most species sort of drift away or peter out, not end with a bang.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Zanarkand


You've never read the Bible, have you? If you had, you'd most likely know that The Bible describes several historical event, which have also been proven scientifically. The Bible also mention many historical people. And if you haven't read it, you really can't talk about whether or not The Bible is just a piece of text.

Some events happened, but that doesn't mean you have to take everything in the bible literally. Like any other historical source, it needs to be subjected to critical analysis. Very often what is described in the bible tells of a historical event from a certain point of view that doesn't always correspond 100% with other historical / archaeological / other sources. I can't think of an example right now though, it's been too long since I read about it.

Just saying..

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Force it? Did you miss the fact that this is a private Christian high school? No one is being forced to take these courses.

Then let them go to Christian colleges.

Clearly, these secular colleges believe in things that contradict God; why taint themselves with such thought?

As a secular college, public funding or not, I think they deserve the right to demand that some things be known by all students that enter; should they fail to meet those requirements, then it's tough noogies for them.

The UC System requires knowledge of evolution's principles; if Christian schools fail to teach them, or if they teach them incorrect explanations, then there is no reason for the UC System to give them credit in that subject area.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's not creationism, and you've failed to prove such a position is inconsistant with science.

The problem with a God-in-the-Gaps argument is that it requires a fundamental assumption for which there is no experimental proof to explain things which are not well understood at the moment.

It's like saying, "Well, I don't know why my year-old laptop keeps crashing. I'll just assume I have a bad one, and buy a new one."

The assumption here, unproven, is that it's defective; that assumption, because it already provides a pat answer and a simple solution deters the very inquisitiveness required for the scientific method.

There's no attempt to troubleshoot the issue: perhaps a recent firmware upgrade caused it? Or an application? Or the user keeps plugging the ventilating ducts?

A God-in-the-Gaps argument, which says that we can't explain some parts of Evolution, and thus God must be involved, isn't very different--God, being omnipotent, created such mechanisms; therefore, everything's working as intended. There is no pressing need to dig further for another answer.

You might think it's a desperate rear guard action, I think random directed evolution just means we don't understand the fundamental principles behind evolution, as random is just another word for "we don't have a clue how it actually works so we just call it random".

Or, it could be that it's simply a temporary term, as so much of science is, that will be modified or replaced when a better explanation comes along.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, no it doesn't. If this were so, no one could be a scientist and a believer.

Science says that it can only apply to realms which are empirical. Whether the bible agrees or disagrees has no bearing on what science says.

This means two things.

1. Science cannot say that the bible is wrong about anything. It can say there is no empirical evidence for the teachings of the bible.

2. The bible can in fact say that science is wrong because science doesn't take into account spiritual realms, which cannot be tested empirically.

Yes. But that textbook says:

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong,"

which suggests the writers are of the mindset that regardless of what science says about the physical world through empirical evidence, such as "The earth is billions years old", if the Bible (according to a literal reading) stated it was less than 10,000 years old, then science would be wrong.

Which is opposed to science--what with it being based on empirical evidence, not an ancient religious text.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where's the observational evidence for the early period in evolution? I agree we should judge a theory based on observational evidence, but by that standard, evolution as a whole doesn't stand up very well against intelligent design.

There's no proof anywhere that there was an intelligent designer.

Assuming there was one is contrary to the princples of the Scientific Method if such a hypothesis cannot be empirically proven, ever.

If a textbook, in teaching evolution states that the theory affirms atheism,

I'd like to see an accredited textbook which makes this claim.

I don't want to get into the ID debate, I wasn't and will not make a case for ID. So please don't lump me in with them.

Tragically, you've already made for a case for ID.

See your first excerpt above.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good question. My perspective is from the outside in. I know for a fact that Christians are generally mocked and ridiculed by folks who don't know better. I know because I was one of the folks who used to mock. The idea is that Christianity is superstition, and that one of the primary goals of science is to destroy all superstition. Ergo, it becomes the mission of science to not only expose Christianity, but to destroy it because the existence of Christianity is contrary to scientific principles.

Funny, I always thought the primary goal of science was to increase our knowledge.

If one of the primary goals of science was to destroy all superstition, then you couldn't have scientists who were Christian, no? Not unless they were like self-hating Jews or Republican gays.

Honestly, that sort of histrionic view is quite reminiscent of the furries claiming fursecution whenever someone looks at them askance when they yiff publicly to a badly drawn image of foxes ****ing dragons.

I doubt if a science textbook taught the dharma or the Koran, that the school would have an issue.

If the science textbook was using either as the basis of one of the theories taught, I'm sure the school would. If, instead, it was about Carbon-14 dating, for instance, and simply discussing how the process was used to date the original material, then probably not.

Besides, the Universities aren't trying to be prejudiced against Buddhists or Muslims. Middle America does it well enough on its own. But it's not like they're trying to be prejudiced against Christians, either--many elite schools have Divinity departments, and most have some sort of philosophy/religious studies department as well.

They're just not part of the Science department. Which is how it's supposed to be.

Honestly, if the university really didn't care about the philosophy, they would just admit the students based on the science content. However, the truth is that they DO care about the philosophy, and because the philosophy is opposed to what the university believes, they are excluding these students. It's not accreditation, but they are not giving the student's credit for these courses wrt to admissions. In essence they are saying that these private high schools don't have the level necessary to get in rather then to get credit at a university level. I think this is total bunk.

Because these courses fail to meet necessary academic requirements for a science class. It's not saying those students can't attend based on other academic results--it's saying that if they wish to continue their science education, they must get up to speed with the basic prerequisites.

[Q Classic]

I doubt if a science textbook taught the dharma or the Koran, that the school would have an issue. When they explicitly refer to the inerrancy of scripture, this automatically makes the Christians feel like they are being singled out. I agree that philosophy is not science, and that includes Atheists. Atheists are no better then the Christians they despise when they insist that Darwinism is an affirmation of Athiesm, and go to great lengths to attack Christianity. I think it's natural for Christians to want to defend themselves from that hostility.

Actually, most people I know--and many of them are in the sciences--didn't have a problem with religion at all until recently. Indeed, they might not have believed, but they were like me--they saw its value for other people, and could roll with it.

But it's been recently, with the hostility and the victim complex card the Christian right has overplayed that has actually set them against religion as a whole. Why?

I think it's natural for the non-religious to want to defend themselves from that Christian hostility.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well of course. If I were happy as an atheist, don't you think I would have stayed there?

Amusingly enough, that's why I left Christianity.

I wasn't happy as one.