I think you should get a Mulligan on this one and be allowed to retract your original statement-no harm/no foul.

I think you should grow a brain and stop spreading your nonsense. Fundamentalism has already killed enough people.

Interbane wrote:

I think you should get a Mulligan on this one and be allowed to retract your original statement-no harm/no foul.

I think you should grow a brain and stop spreading your nonsense. Fundamentalism has already killed enough people.

My name is not Jack Traven.

don't get caught up in the "I'm so shocked by what you said, i demand you retract it!" mode.

Common right wing tactic is mock outrage.

See: everything Sarah Palin.

That is f*&%ing retarded, Johnson.

Which is worse, messing with the mind or messing with the body? Stahrwe makes a good point that creationism serves as a narrative basis for ethical conduct. The problem is that the apparent positive benefits, such as love of family and community, conceal larger harm, namely the distortion of motives away from belief in evidence towards belief in authority. The Roman Catholic Church current pedophile scandal implicating the Pope shows how secrecy in authority can support unethical conduct. Messing with ideas, for example with attitudes towards sexuality associated with making the Virgin Mary an icon, can easily provide permission or protection, tacit or overt, for distorted morality.

stahrwe wrote:

geo wrote:James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656)
John Lightfoot (March 29, 1602 – December 6, 1675)
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In the 1600s they didn't have a clue as to how old the earth was. People thought dinosaur bones belonged to dragons or giants. Bloodletting was a common practice in medicine. And people were executed for being witches.

We certainly have come a long way since then haven't we. Do you know who the last person conviceted of witchcraft was and the year?

Stahrwe, you have this incredible knack for missing the point. I suppose you're going to say that witchcraft persecutions are still happening in some areas of the world and that's probably true. We can safely say that slavery, too, is still practiced in some places. We also have pockets of fundie Christians who still think the earth is 8,000 years old. The point is that in the 1600s medicine was quite primitive and people were very superstitious by today's standards. Since then there have been huge advances in science and medicine which is why no one uses biblical chronology to estimate the age of the earth any more. Those who cling to such outdated modes of thinking are appropriately considered fringe.

johnson1010 wrote:don't get caught up in the "I'm so shocked by what you said, i demand you retract it!" mode.

I didn't demand anything, am not demanding anything, I just wouldn't want my name associated with a comment like Interbane made.

Johnson1010 wrote:Common right wing tactic is mock outrage.

Is that like mock turtle? If so that is more likely the province of atheists

johnson1010 wrote:See: everything Sarah Palin.

I have not idea what this means or has to do with this discussion.

Robert Tulip wrote:Which is worse, messing with the mind or messing with the body? Stahrwe makes a good point that creationism serves as a narrative basis for ethical conduct. The problem is that the apparent positive benefits, such as love of family and community, conceal larger harm, namely the distortion of motives away from belief in evidence towards belief in authority. The Roman Catholic Church current pedophile scandal implicating the Pope shows how secrecy in authority can support unethical conduct. Messing with ideas, for example with attitudes towards sexuality associated with making the Virgin Mary an icon, can easily provide permission or protection, tacit or overt, for distorted morality.

The lesson taught to children with respect to creation versus evolution is that each child is a unique and precious creation of God and not an accidental product of chemical reactions. It is heartbreaking to see the children whom we have known over the years who are desperate for someone to tell them that they are loved. We are not indoctrinating them to submit to authority but to know that no matter how hard things get, how alone they feel, not to believe the lie that they are unlovable, because God loves them.

As for the scandals it angers me that we have reached a point in our society, because of these scandals, that we now do background checks on our children's and youth workers, require that two workers be present whenever children or youth are involved, and that as a man, I have to discourage that little girl, who is desperate for affection, from giving me a hug.

geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:

geo wrote:James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656)
John Lightfoot (March 29, 1602 – December 6, 1675)
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In the 1600s they didn't have a clue as to how old the earth was. People thought dinosaur bones belonged to dragons or giants. Bloodletting was a common practice in medicine. And people were executed for being witches.

We certainly have come a long way since then haven't we. Do you know who the last person conviceted of witchcraft was and the year?

Stahrwe, you have this incredible knack for missing the point. I suppose you're going to say that witchcraft persecutions are still happening in some areas of the world and that's probably true. We can safely say that slavery, too, is still practiced in some places. We also have pockets of fundie Christians who still think the earth is 8,000 years old. The point is that in the 1600s medicine was quite primitive and people were very superstitious by today's standards. Since then there have been huge advances in science and medicine which is why no one uses biblical chronology to estimate the age of the earth any more. Those who cling to such outdated modes of thinking are appropriately considered fringe.

If memory serves, it was Helen Duncan, England, convicted and jailed for witchcraft in 1944.

I suppose that Richard Dawkins was alive by then.

The evolution of creationist apologetics.

A) Primitive = YEC: God created the world in six days about six thousand years +/-ago and science is wrong, there's no evolution.

B) Advancing = OEC: God created the world billions of years ago, as science shows, but God created man in his own image and there's still no evolution even though science says there is.

C) Modernizing = ID: God created the world billions of years ago and it has been evolving just as science says, but God has been directing the evolving process which resulted in humanity.

Where can they go from here? At some point it would seem that they'll have to flat out take up the scientific method for what it actually is because they've been coming closer and closer to it, step by step, all along. At some point the two paths seem destined to converge. By then those who remain in the primitive and advancing stages would likely be such a minority that they have no pull any more. The rejection of science will have faded out altogether. This new converging realm is where a Christian like Robert seems to fit in and is currently pioneering and discovering possibilities. It accepts the scientific method and pushes beyond ID fallacies.