To the Kansas School Board [Archive] - Automags.Org Online Forums

Jaan

08-04-2005, 03:56 PM

So, would going to Uncle Tony's for dinner be considered "Communion"? I prefer the term "ritualistic cannibalism" myself (c:

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc"

Disclaimer:

"This thread contains material on creationism. Creationism is not a theory, let alone a fact; it is a religious notion about the origin of life, not supported by evidence. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Jakedubbleya

08-04-2005, 04:34 PM

"Creationism is not a theory, let alone a fact; it is a religious notion about the origin of life, not supported by evidence. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Any other existance theories (big bang etc) are just as speculative as a creationist theory. What is this "evidence" for matter/energy suddenly apparating by the laws of science? :rolleyes:

spantol

08-04-2005, 04:45 PM

Any other existance theories (big bang etc) are just as speculative as a creationist theory. What is this "evidence" for matter/energy suddenly apparating by the laws of science? :rolleyes:

Here you go, Jake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence

What distinguishes a scientific theory like BBT from theology like Creationism is that a scientific theory is predictive and falsifiable. BBT's formulation allows for predictions to be made, and tested for. When (or if) observations that conflict with BBT's predictions are made, classical BBT will be rejected, and a new, more complete model will come about.

By contrast, Creationism offers no predictions or insight into the natural world. As such, it is not science, and to co-opt scientific jargon to describe it is disingenuous, if not downright sinister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy.

NJPaint

08-04-2005, 05:03 PM

Any other existance theories (big bang etc) are just as speculative as a creationist theory. What is this "evidence" for matter/energy suddenly apparating by the laws of science? :rolleyes:

Evidence? Do you want the Astrophysics 312 explanation or the layman version? Just as speculative? Hmmm. Lets see. They predicted that CMBR would exist at 2.73K, it did. They predicted that the redshift of the furthest quasars would be z = 1100 and guess what, it did! Your only arguement is "but science can't explain how stuff popped up out of no where!" Well, you are right, they don't know where it all came from originally. But in terms of predicting the future/being useful to humanity science provides answers, clues etc. Creationism is just as useful as a Flying Spaghetti Monster in that field.

Jaan

08-04-2005, 05:20 PM

Any other existance theories (big bang etc) are just as speculative as a creationist theory. What is this "evidence" for matter/energy suddenly apparating by the laws of science? :rolleyes:
Actually, what I quoted was a play on words. The original unaltered statement is on the stickers which are put into science textbooks in Georgia:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered"

In all fairness, I lifted mine from an old article from the JREF ( www.randi.org ) with a slight modification to make it fit here:

"This textbook contains material on creationism. Creationism is not a theory, let alone a fact; it is a religious notion about the origin of life, not supported by evidence. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered"

I think I like the one supplied by James Randi better :D

"A lot of people hate my skepticism, and I think I understand why. The psychics offer wonders and endless possibilities in a world that often seems difficult and mundane. They promise health, wealth, wisdom, eternal life. But if you examine the record, it's not the psychics but the hard-nosed scientists who have actually delivered the things that improve human life. And, to me, science describes a world far more interesting than any psychic fantasy. It's a good world — not perfect — but it's ours. So we'd better learn to live with it, the way it is."

- James Randi

Amen!

spantol

08-04-2005, 05:22 PM

To clarify this point, there are scientific hypotheses concerning the cause of the Big Bang. They are conjectures that predict a number of ancillary phenomena. Due to the nature of the physics involved, though, testing these hypotheses is rather difficult--the energies involved are beyond our current production ability.

These conjectures differ from "God did it" in that they are, again, predictive and falsifiable. The latter just not at the moment.

Also, if we're going to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight over Creationism vs Evolution, let's just get this out of the way: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I think it'll save everyone some time.

Well, you are right, they don't know where it all came from originally.

WenULiVeUdiE

08-04-2005, 07:46 PM

Don't let Tom see this thread. He'll write an entire book on it.

MoneyShot

08-04-2005, 08:44 PM

hey i live in kansas

Hairball

08-04-2005, 08:56 PM

My elementary school gifted teacher from Shawnee Mission School District sent that to me.

Vex

08-04-2005, 10:00 PM

hey i live in kansas
Hey, I live in Arkansas...and let me tell you--a vast majority of the people here haven't evolved yet.

kosmo

08-04-2005, 10:39 PM

Ah thats quality. I sincerely hope the delegate that responded intending to bring that up to the board does so. Conservative America is really starting to piss me off though. I see the benefit to teaching alternate views on the world, but that is what a theology class is for.

bornl33t

08-05-2005, 05:45 AM

"This thread contains material on creationism. Creationism is not a theory, let alone a fact; it is a religious notion about the origin of life, not supported by evidence. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

I sugjest you stop reading about Randi's opinions and start making your own.

kosmo

08-05-2005, 07:00 AM

I suggest learning the english language before you try to insult someone with it. Then once you have learned to spell, work on more advanced concepts, like hypocrisy.

MoneyShot

08-05-2005, 11:17 AM

Hey, I live in Arkansas...and let me tell you--a vast majority of the people here haven't evolved yet

yeha i hear ya, my grandma lives in arkansas and we go and visit her a lot.

bornl33t

08-05-2005, 02:09 PM

I suggest learning the english language before you try to insult someone with it. Then once you have learned to spell, work on more advanced concepts, like hypocrisy.

Learn to understand the word hypocrisy before you use it. Then you would certainly understand that it doesn't apply here. Also, the spelling thing is getting old. Find something a little more unique to build a comeback on so you at least seem like you have a mind of your own. And why are you posting a comeback to begin with? I don't remember making reference to you or insulting your religion or insulting your political standpoint? Maybe you need to work on more advanced concepts like when to open your mouth or not.

PS In your sentence the word English should be capitalized.

kosmo

08-05-2005, 03:00 PM

While true that english should be capitalized, I dont really capitalize anything in my online writings with the exception of I and the beginning of the sentence. It isnt formal, but I do spell correctly.

Now that youve gotten a grasp on that concept, we will move on to hypocrisy. In your first post you reccomended with a not so subtle amount of hostility that nj should think for himself. This would indicate that you support the creationist theory and the actions of the school board. This is hypocritical because:

1: How is creationism thinking for yourself? Oh thats right, its not. Its accepting what someone else told you.

2: It is hypocritical because of your basic stance on the issue. You believe that your version of creationism is equally presentable with scientific theories in the classroom. And yet you reject this mans equally scientifically valid version of creationism.

In fact, njpaint has at no point apparent in this thread accepted the spaghetti monster as the creater of the universe. He simply chose to post this story for its humor and because the author presents some very good points about the actions of the school board.

NJPaint

08-05-2005, 03:31 PM

In fact, njpaint has at no point apparent in this thread accepted the spaghetti monster as the creater of the universe. He simply chose to post this story for its humor and because the author presents some very good points about the actions of the school board.

That is a lie. I had a point. This has nothing to do with humor. I am one of the 10 million+ followers of th Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation. I pay homage to Him. This is an attempt to convert more of you to see the light and to teach this to your children as an equal theory to Christian dogma. We feel as though we should have the same status in the classroom as Christian teachings as we have as much evidence as they do and we whole heartedly believe that one day the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reveal Himself openly to the world and that you should all be prepared!

spantol

08-05-2005, 03:59 PM

Heretic.

Behold, the one true faith (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_of_Alfredo).

Jaan

08-05-2005, 05:33 PM

I sugjest you stop reading about Randi's opinions and start making your own.
THERE IS NO GOD.

How's that?

Vex

08-05-2005, 05:46 PM

THERE IS NO GOD.
Because MY god killed him/her/it, making your life more enjoyable and less sheep-like.

Go and live in peace, my friend.

Jakedubbleya

08-05-2005, 06:06 PM

1: How is creationism thinking for yourself? Oh thats right, its not. Its accepting what someone else told you.

now i realize that yall are a bunch of math nerds etc, but there is a school of thought you might want to look into; philosophy, logical lines CAN be drawn to creationism, or at least einstein (amongst others of scientific thought) thought so :confused:

now in all your responces i did not notice a proof (or even a trace of evidence) of how matter and energy came into existance. so what exactly was the point of all those posts? to prove that the scientific method is superior? that because you are ignorant of the ways philosophy is thought out (not through blind faith i assure you) that you must be right with an irrelevant equation? as if philosophy is blind to science?

my lord we are cocky.

Vex

08-05-2005, 06:15 PM

now in all your responces i did not notice a proof (or even a trace of evidence) of how matter and energy came into existance. so what exactly was the point of all those posts? to prove that the scientific method is superior? that because you are ignorant of the ways philosophy is thought out (not through blind faith i assure you) that you must be right with an irrelevant equation? as if philosophy is blind to science?

my lord we are cocky.
Hmm, matter cannot be created or destroyed; BUT, if it comes together to form something else--it's still there, just in a different form right?

Ice melts and turns into water--but it's still the same matter, just in a different form. Same thing for when the water evaporates and turns into a gas--just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it is not there.

Open up your minds--there is a lot to discover. Faith and spirituality have squat to do with organized religion. Religion is a tool--created and abused by man in order to keep the flock in line.

Jakedubbleya

08-05-2005, 06:48 PM

Hmm, matter cannot be created or destroyed; BUT, if it comes together to form something else--it's still there, just in a different form right?

Ice melts and turns into water--but it's still the same matter, just in a different form. Same thing for when the water evaporates and turns into a gas--just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it is not there.

Open up your minds--there is a lot to discover. Faith and spirituality have squat to do with organized religion. Religion is a tool--created and abused by man in order to keep the flock in line.

solve for us then the mystery of time, if matter/energy could have always existed if that is the case (a leap of faith in itself).

through my studies of religion and human thought, i have found that many of the best men and women to ever live were of the church (the saints). I view it as more than an explanation of the universe, but also as a guide to humanity, my humanity. I know that the greatest man I ever met is a monk in california, he looks past himself and serves others to a degree i cant even comprehend, and he isnt some drooling depressed zealot, he is a brilliant man with ideas and the largest heart i know. People that serve themselves, that try to solve the universe for themselves always turn out a little crooked, that is why i follow it, through the example and evidence that the perfect life can be lived by following "mans organized religion". That is evidence for me enough. That doesnt mean i dont question, the church encourages questioning, how could a true institution hold firm otherwise? it doesnt claim to know everything, just what it needs to know. the theologians, they didnt "obey" they questioned, and came up with much of the philosophical, theological and SCIENTIFIC truths we still hold today, and yes, thay found that those truths were in correspondance with the ancient teachings of the church, and judaism before that.

no, i dont want to get into a religious debate of any sort, but to say that believing in god through an organized religion (or guide if you would take it as such) is "closed minded" is well, closed minded.

Kellen_p8nt

08-05-2005, 08:19 PM

for one canging the definition of science as was proposed by some kasnians(sp?) is insane or stupid one of the two, im not sure which.

Secondly Jake, Of which camp of philosophy are you refering to? What philosophers?

Because I can start ratteling off some of the most brilliant philosophers that did not believe in a God and could show why.

Also it seems inherently possible that infinitude is "the superior thing" of the universe thus allowing matter time and energy to live forever. Infinity could be a principle holding it all together. It also could be the concept of change and effect. Was it Hume? I think that disscused the movement of two object, colliding and the 2nd ball moving. We see the first ball move, hit, then the second ball move. We never see cause and effect, we empirically see ove hit move. However we derive the exitence of some principle from these events that could be whats holding everything together. This seems logical because if we ever wanted to get 0 kelvin we would have to stop cause and effect. And if we hit 0 kelvin then we the universe simply wont exist or be able to resume itself.

Is it possible a God exists? Yea sure. God is a theory, a non scientific one. On that cannot be tested. And let us not forget that most all practices of this nture sprung from philosophy. And in a philosophical sense claims can be built up and destroyed by counter evidence. If ntot hen well Marxwas right and COmmunism is great and I KNOW alot of people on this boards would go crazy hearing that.

SpitFire1299

08-05-2005, 09:00 PM

Is it possible a God exists? Yea sure. God is a theory, a non scientific one. On that cannot be tested.

It depends who your talking to. God to me is someone who I can look up to and follow on the path to righteousness. I dont test my faith or try to proof others wrong. Sure.. God is something that cannot be tested but it can be believed remorselessly. My faith cannot be proven wrong, because its what I truley believe. (Faith means "Indeed/truley")

NJPaint

08-05-2005, 09:24 PM

solve for us then the mystery of time, if matter/energy could have always existed if that is the case (a leap of faith in itself).

through my studies of religion and human thought, i have found that many of the best men and women to ever live were of the church (the saints). I view it as more than an explanation of the universe, but also as a guide to humanity, my humanity. I know that the greatest man I ever met is a monk in california, he looks past himself and serves others to a degree i cant even comprehend, and he isnt some drooling depressed zealot, he is a brilliant man with ideas and the largest heart i know. People that serve themselves, that try to solve the universe for themselves always turn out a little crooked, that is why i follow it, through the example and evidence that the perfect life can be lived by following "mans organized religion". That is evidence for me enough. That doesnt mean i dont question, the church encourages questioning, how could a true institution hold firm otherwise? it doesnt claim to know everything, just what it needs to know. the theologians, they didnt "obey" they questioned, and came up with much of the philosophical, theological and SCIENTIFIC truths we still hold today, and yes, thay found that those truths were in correspondance with the ancient teachings of the church, and judaism before that.

no, i dont want to get into a religious debate of any sort, but to say that believing in god through an organized religion (or guide if you would take it as such) is "closed minded" is well, closed minded.

But that is your assuption that the ultimate human being is to live fore others and to be a "good person" and selfless. While I agree entirely with you and came to that conclusion through a entirely different path, I recognize that it isn't the end all and I might be wrong.

Jakedubbleya

08-05-2005, 09:59 PM

kellen i was simply referring to philosophy as a whole, i understand that most philosophers come to different ends. I was making just that point, that philosophy is cross referenced disproven, reproven and lost many times over. Also note that the god of the jews is not infinite, he is infinite in many aspects, yes, but not the all encompassing infinite you imply.

NJ, that is an assumption that if i found to be false would seriously disrupt me, i admit. i know how i feel about others, that is my state of mind, my sanity, to ever accept that i would be happyest by serving myself would cross a lot of barriers i have already defined. I know what is right in MY mind. Call me a compassionate soul but bein a happy helper is my ultimate.

Jaan

08-05-2005, 10:32 PM

my lord we are cocky.The first time I read that I read it as "My Lord is cocky." lol It does seem strange that, of the couple of hundred gods I'm aware of, man rarely invents a god greater than man himself. Most have the manors of a spoiled child. That, I think, is the best proof against an omnipotent being.

You know, this whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing reminds me of getting in trouble when I was in Catholic school. My friends and I would produce comic books ourselves, and we had a series where we worshiped the Green M&M. Boy, did we get it when the penguins found out about *that* little blasphemy. Or was it idolatry? paganism? I get my metaphysical nomenclature mixed up sometimes ...

Yea and God said to Abraham, "You will kill your son Issac." And Abraham said, "I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said, "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here." :D

kosmo

08-05-2005, 11:34 PM

spantol

08-05-2005, 11:53 PM

Personally, I liked Intelligent Design better the first time, in 1802, when it was called the Teleological Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument).

kosmo

08-06-2005, 01:47 AM

That would be a much more logical formula if the concept of intelligent design in itself wasnt such a stretch.

spantol

08-06-2005, 02:07 AM

That would be a much more logical formula if the concept of intelligent design in itself wasnt such a stretch.

Easier to refute, too. When you set the existance of a creator as an axiom, and you go on to infer that a creator exists, you've accomplished nothing. It reduces to a tautology--it's meaningless.

bornl33t

08-06-2005, 05:57 AM

While true that english should be capitalized, I dont really capitalize anything in my online writings with the exception of I and the beginning of the sentence. It isnt formal, but I do spell correctly.

I got that far and stoped reading. I've been on AO for long enough to know the word games and I don't play them. I'll give you a thumbs up for fessing up to that part I quoted. You seem to understand why I don't care what my spelling is like..in your own way.
And that's all I have to say about that.

Jakedubbleya

08-08-2005, 07:00 PM

Yea and God said to Abraham, "You will kill your son Issac." And Abraham said, "I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said, "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here." :D

out on highway, 61...

Jakedubbleya

08-08-2005, 07:06 PM

My point is that philosophy isnt science. It is philosophy. To claim that philosophy conforms to scientific method would be inaccurate. My point is also that if you are alleging that philosophy can predict the beginning of the universe, then the flying spaghetti monster, be it smothered in marinara or alfredo sauce, is just as legitimate of an answer as the Christian version of creationism.

well it might have a hard time explaining the purpose of evil, life, etc... but yeah i guess. although there are of course bonuses to a divine institution that cannot be had by simply believing in a being of some random self cognated sort. bonuses such as history, evidence of genuine and widespread influence and so on. thre really is more to it than faith and the spaghetti monster mocks that. im done with thsi thread but feel free to respond.