EDIT: I just realized that I posted something and then I accidently deleted it in an edit. I'll attempt a response again tomorrow unless i can find a record of the enormous post I lost.
What happened was that I copy-pasted an add-on over the rest of the post, which happened to be the bulk of my statements. I don't have the time or energy to go back and completely make a new post yet today, so it'll be something I get to tomorrow.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 5:36 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

---

"I love how you claim Creation is not Science"

That is only because it isn't science. It is a religious belief held by a very small minority of conservative fundamentalist Christians. THE END.

---

Quote:I was actually doing some post graduate work with one of the National Parks in my area. I was working with one of my old professors (My Evolutionary Biology Professor, an Atheist btw). We were talking about the current Scientific Community and Peer-review system and he actually gave me a warning. He said that some of the guys out there now are so tied into their view of Science that if someone were to find something that shook the very foundations of it, their life may be endangered. It really is sad the way it works today, it reminds me of the old Dr. Seuss story about the "Sneetches".

Actually creationists have a system identical to the secular system. Several evolutionists have tried to submit fraudulant articles for publishing in creation journals (posing as creationists dishonestly) but these journals were rejected every time based on bad methodology. Kind of funny actually.

What a load of crap. Her work was ininitally refused because it was suspected that her samples were contaminated. After more analysis was done, it was acepted.

Creationists have nothing like the scientific method, or scientic peer review. Nothing at all like it, so please stop misrepresenting the facts.

Now you are just being dishonest, it's really sad you would go that far. If you had read the article I posted you would have seen that her article was rejected by one reviewer on the grounds that it couldn't be right. When asked what amount of evidence could ever persuade him he replied "none". Yes that sound rather objective to me (sarcasm). Even her boss Jack Horner admitted that despite doing good work she was having a tough time being published because people didn't like her findings. Read the article.

Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

I didn't have to read the article. I've seen her lecture on her findings. She said that the initial problem was that reviewers thought that her samples had been contaminated. So she repeated the analysis and got the same results. Tyhat is when her findings were accepted. Whether one reviewer said what is claimed is irrelevant. Her findings have been accepted. End of story. Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't waste my time trying to get anything published in a creationism journal because they are not recognized publications for communicating real science.

---

Quote:Hmm, well you may be happy with people with law degrees deciding what is and is not Science, but I am not. Besides, one of your buddies on here defined Science as "wanting to learn", seems like you guys don't even agree what is science and is not science. Creation Science falls under the dictionary definition of science so I like to define it as so- I don't care what some Judge thinks. You are right about one thing though, ID and Creation Science should not be in public schools, but neither should kids.[quote]

No I have no problem at all with the courts protecting the American people from people like you. That is what they are supposed to do. That you don't believe that our children have a right to public education is yet another reason why the courts are involved.

[quote]P.S. ID is not Creationism, stop trying to tell Creationists what they believe and what they don't believe.

P.S., yes it is. The scientific community knows it, the courts know it, the people at ID have had to admit in court that it is, and any rational, thinking person should know it as well.

Quote:The ID movement are just a bunch of Old-Earth Scientists who recognize the weaknesses of Neo-Darwinian Theory and Abiogenesis and want something more intellectually satisfying. Some of them believe in panspermia, which is not Creationism. I am not surprised that the legal professionals in Dover could not see this clear distinction, considering their area of focus is the legal system and not science. However, I am a bit surprised you cannot see this clear distinction.

Whether or not they are old Earth creationists is irrelevant. Old Earth-creationism, youg Earth creationism - makes no difference. It is all creationism, and is not science.

---

Oh, anbd Statler, I'm still waiting for a response from you regarding my post #12.

---

(October 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: EDIT: I just realized that I posted something and then I accidently deleted it in an edit. I'll attempt a response again tomorrow unless i can find a record of the enormous post I lost.
What happened was that I copy-pasted an add-on over the rest of the post, which happened to be the bulk of my statements. I don't have the time or energy to go back and completely make a new post yet today, so it'll be something I get to tomorrow.

That happened to me earlier today. I feel your pain.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

That would be very simple,

First you buy a creationist college degree, then you spout a whole lot of pseudo scientific bullshit like anisotropic light propagation.
Then you finish that bullshit with ".......this therefore shows that the bible is right"

Easy.

---

(October 21, 2010 at 9:38 am)rjh4 Wrote: Zen, you asked me to come up with a classification system such that what we call "birds" would be classified with "bats". I did that. What is the problem? How was my classification system "wrong"?

True, it is not technically wrong, it doesn't address the issue, but it is not wrong.

Quote:Actually, the Bible doesn't really even say that the bat is a bird. The Hebrew word translated as "bird" can merely mean "flying creature". So, why not substitute "flying creature" for "bird" in Leviticus 11:13 for whatever translation you are reading.

The word used is fowl, and since the passage then goes on to list a whole group of actual birds but leaves out insects(most of which have wings) various gliding mammals, pteranodons etc then the people who wrote it thought that bats were fowl.

Quote: Seems pretty clear to me that is what that whole passage means anyway. You just seem to be stuck in thinking that the only classification system possible is the one currently in use.

Feel free to quote an alternative classification system that can sensibly class bats as birds.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

I am sure I will. The degree of intellectual dishonesty, adherence to notions conceived in the iron age, and the willful ignorance of human intellectual progress since 1750 that is necessary for acceptance by the peers of creationists do not come naturally to me.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

Yes, but Bacon didn't live for the two and a half centuries it took for his method to debunk young earth creationism. how dare scums like you claim his name while insulting the potential his method?

(October 22, 2010 at 3:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 9:38 am)rjh4 Wrote: Zen, you asked me to come up with a classification system such that what we call "birds" would be classified with "bats". I did that. What is the problem? How was my classification system "wrong"?

True, it is not technically wrong, it doesn't address the issue, but it is not wrong.

Thank you for such an admission. I still don't see how it fails to address the issue though. You asked me to come up with a classification system where birds and bats would be classified together. I did. I addressed the issue.

(October 22, 2010 at 3:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote: The word used is fowl, and since the passage then goes on to list a whole group of actual birds but leaves out insects(most of which have wings) various gliding mammals, pteranodons etc then the people who wrote it thought that bats were fowl.

The word can also mean "flying creature". Since it then lists a bunch of animals that fly, I don't see why you have such a hard time with this passage.

(October 22, 2010 at 3:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Feel free to quote an alternative classification system that can sensibly class bats as birds.

I already did that, Zen, and you didn't like my answer...and you failed to provide any reasons why my system is not "sensible".

I have to agree with rjh4 here. Whilst the Bible clearly gets things wrong by our standard of classification, this standard wasn't adopted until after the Bible was written. You might be able to use this fact to justify a claim that God didn't write the Bible, or that God isn't omniscient (else why didn't he write it so it wasn't so ambiguous to later generations?) but it would be a very weak position to hold and defend.

To be honest, there are far greater examples of the Bible getting things wrong that would lead to a much better debate than quibbling over methods of classifying animals. With a basic method of classification, I can totally see why bats and birds would be put together.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope sorry, still just different roles in the Church.

Yeah, and apparently the "role" of women in the church is to sit down, shut up, don't ask questions and do whatever your husband tells you. This is pretty much the equivalent of "sit in the back of the bus". Only worse. And you want to claim that the Bible doesn't treat women as inferior?

Quote:Men are commanded to love their wives

And we all know how well men have followed that command throughout history, don't we?

Quote:, uh oh! Does this mean men are inferior to women because they are the only ones commanded to love?

Let's see... men are commanded to love their wives. The wives are told that the husband "rules over" them. And you think this is equal? The husband can beat the snot out of his wife for not obeying and still claim to "love" her. Which side of this fence would you rather be on?

Quote:These are all things people who don't understand scripture try to point out,

I understand scripture very well. It is folks like you who try to put a spin on it so you can make it out to be something it isn't.

Quote: women are given roles in the church and they are just as important as the roles men are given.

And what "role" do they have? Other than "shut up and don't ask questions"?

Quote:When you ask someone, "oh is that YOUR wife", or does that mean you legally own that person?

And this is not the context of the passage. It says, "Let your women keep silent in the church". It does NOT say, "Women are to keep silent in the church". See the difference? In this context, "your" implies ownership. As in "your goats" or "your pigs". And this is exactly what we would expect people of that time period to write. These were people who considered wives to be the property of their husbands. And it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I would expect to be written by a loving and just deity.

Quote: Nope, that's just the way the English works there.

Nice try, but nope.

Quote:Noticed you failed to give verses like this...

Galatians 3:8
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So what? This verse hardly washes away the ones I quoted. You want more? How about this beauty...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, "I took this woman and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin", then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginityto the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, "I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, 'I found your daughter was not a virgin', and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity." And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him. And they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. ANd she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death.

So let's review this... Women must be virgins when they marry. If not, they can be stoned to death. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where the men must be virgins when they marry? The guys can have as much sex as they can get before getting married and it's okay! But if a woman does the same thing... STONE HER!!!! And women aren't considered inferior? And what's with the bullshit about the woman being falsely accused and the penalty FOR THE MAN is that he can never divorce his wife? Maybe SHE wants to divorce HIM! But apparently, that's not allowed. Yeah, they're "equals", alright!

Quote:Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

What kind of dumbass question is this? It's wrong to view women as inferior for the same reason it's wrong to view black people as inferior. What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Quote:Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Because secular humanism is a vastly superior moral base than the mysoganistic, genocidal, sadistic and otherwise just plain weird bible and although you do not have be a secular humanist to be an athiest most seem to have leanings in that direction.

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

I knew you wouldn't read that article because you wouldn't like what it said, it makes your beloved peer-review system out to be the joke it really is.

Actually the Creation peer reviewed journals are recognized as Scientific peer reviewed journals. So making an assertion to the contrary doesn't prove anything

Oh really? so an ID person who believes all life was planed on Earth by an Alien race is a creationist? Or the ID guys who are neither religious nor even believe in God are creationists? Give me a break. You can point to all the court cases you want, but considering there were court cases to uphold segregation and women not having the right to vote I wouldn't practice that tactic. Bigotry is wrong no matter what court supports it. The old "Sneetches" argument is really lame and I am glad a few guys on here have gotten past it, I will have more respect for you on an intellectual level when you get past it too.

---

So these Christian schools giving out "fake" degrees are Harvard, LSU, Colrado State, University of Sydney, and University of Chicago? Wow, those must be some pretty awesome Christian schools and fake degrees considering those are some of the places the Creation guys attended.

People have tried to do exactly what you just suggest doing, and they were rejected on the basis of bad methodology. So I encourage you to try and if you get published I will give you my left foot.

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

---

(October 22, 2010 at 5:54 am)Chuck Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

I am sure I will. The degree of intellectual dishonesty, adherence to notions conceived in the iron age, and the willful ignorance of human intellectual progress since 1750 that is necessary for acceptance by the peers of creationists do not come naturally to me.

(October 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

Yes, but Bacon didn't live for the two and a half centuries it took for his method to debunk young earth creationism. how dare scums like you claim his name while insulting the potential his method?

Oh, so first it was the Bronze age but now it is the Iron age?

Scum huh? Personal attacks are always indicitive of a weak argument. Keep using them by all means. Creationists take a lot of pride in following the Scientific Method (considering their guy came up with it), and you have yet to point out anything they do that does not adhere to it. So thus far my argument stands un-refuted.

---

(October 22, 2010 at 10:59 am)Thor Wrote:

Quote: And we all know how well men have followed that command throughout history, don't we?

Man's reluctance to obey a command does not make the command itself wrong. Simple.

Quote: Let's see... men are commanded to love their wives. The wives are told that the husband "rules over" them. And you think this is equal? The husband can beat the snot out of his wife for not obeying and still claim to "love" her. Which side of this fence would you rather be on?

Where in scripture does it say men can beat the "snot" out of their wives? I thought you said you understood scripture, where is this verse?

Quote: And what "role" do they have? Other than "shut up and don't ask questions"?

I think that being a mom is the toughest and most important job on Earth. If you do not think so then maybe you are the one who thinks women are inferior to men.

Quote: And this is not the context of the passage. It says, "Let your women keep silent in the church". It does NOT say, "Women are to keep silent in the church". See the difference? In this context, "your" implies ownership. As in "your goats" or "your pigs". And this is exactly what we would expect people of that time period to write. These were people who considered wives to be the property of their husbands. And it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I would expect to be written by a loving and just deity.

Oh so using your same bad logic, if I asked you, "hey is YOUR girlfriend coming with you on Saturday?", this would mean you owned your girlfriend? When scripture is addressing women it refers to their husbands as "your husbands", do they own the men in that case? Learn basic grammar.

Quote: So what? This verse hardly washes away the ones I quoted. You want more? How about this beauty...

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, "I took this woman and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin", then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginityto the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, "I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, 'I found your daughter was not a virgin', and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity." And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him. And they shall fine him 100 shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. ANd she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death.

So let's review this... Women must be virgins when they marry. If not, they can be stoned to death. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where the men must be virgins when they marry? The guys can have as much sex as they can get before getting married and it's okay! But if a woman does the same thing... STONE HER!!!! And women aren't considered inferior? And what's with the bullshit about the woman being falsely accused and the penalty FOR THE MAN is that he can never divorce his wife? Maybe SHE wants to divorce HIM! But apparently, that's not allowed. Yeah, they're "equals", alright!

So when a verse makes all races and both genders equal under Christ it does not count?

I thought someone understood scripture? Then why are you trying to apply a law under the Mosaic Convenent under the New Convenent Christ fulfilled? Tsk tsk tsk. Someone needs to stop getting their information from un-educated atheist sources and get their Bible education from guys who are actually educated concerning the Bible.

Quote: What kind of dumbass question is this? It's wrong to view women as inferior for the same reason it's wrong to view black people as inferior. What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it. Saying, "Rape is wrong for the same reasons murder is wrong." doesn't exactly tell me why either of them are wrong now does it? So don't use that same bad argumentation here. Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

---

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='100790' dateline='1287771386']

Quote:Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Because secular humanism is a vastly superior moral base than the mysoganistic, genocidal, sadistic and otherwise just plain weird bible and although you do not have be a secular humanist to be an athiest most seem to have leanings in that direction.

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

I didn't ask for why the person who wrote that Wiki article thought it was wrong, I want to know why you think it is wrong. So tell me in your own words and be specific.

Quote:Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it. Saying, "Rape is wrong for the same reasons murder is wrong." doesn't exactly tell me why either of them are wrong now does it? So don't use that same bad argumentation here. Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

I would happily make the sacrifice of fucking you senseless in the ass to prove how rape is just as bad as murder, besides, you sir are a waste of good oxygen !