http://www.s8int.com/grandcanyon.html

None have said that the information contained in this book is inaccurate, yet they vehemently oppose it's presence.

WHY ?!

Just as science is scary to religon, religon is scary to science.

They are cut from different cloths.

One is based on proof and one is based on faith neither is wrong per say but it all depends on the observer. I'd have to say that the view that the earth is less than 10000 years old is considered by most today to be pure fiction. It cannot be proved as far as I know but I will admit I am not yet omnipotent.

Sure they have, the book is just a bunch of old essays that have already been debunked. It's even an old article. Do your research man. You are looking like a moron.

The complaint is that it's not geology but religion. The author even admits that in the article when he says it's an attack on "evolutionists" "world view."

Because the national parks service being a government department and all can not show preference for one religion over another.

A lot of water in a short time tearing out hundreds of feet deep of ground?

Fucking hogwash. You could never get a high enough pressure to do that.

Personally, I'm happy about it.

But to look at it from the point of view of the company selling them, it's a bad move in a country as wacked as the USA.

They'll never make as much money selling boring geological pamphlets as they did selling exciting fundamentalist propaganda.

Poor buggers.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



None have said that the information contained in this book is inaccurate, yet they vehemently oppose it's presence.

WHY ?!

Did you even read the article?

Why they haven't said, "That book is bullshit", they have certainly implied it:

"Elders summed up his review by commenting "(The book) is not a geological treatise. It is ‘Exhibit A' of a new, slick strategy to proselytize by biblical literalists using a beautifully illustrated, multi-authored book about a spectacular and world-famous geological feature. Allowing the sale of this book within the National Park was unfortunate. In the minds of some buyers, this could imply National Park Service (NPS) approval of young Earth creationists and their religious proselytizing. I believe that the continued sale of this book within the National Park will undermine the work of the NPS interpreters who work so hard to educate the public.""

"The National Park Service should be extremely careful about giving the impression that it approves of the anti-science movement known as young Earth creationism

..."



"As such, any implied approval or endorsement by the NPS for the book and others like it undermines efforts to educate the public..."

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Because the national parks service being a government department and all can not show preference for one religion over another.

Oh, no ?

Then why is it that there is a shop at the south rim of the Grand Canyon that is dedicated to nothing but Native Americans and their heritage, to include medicine wheels, dream catchers, and Kachina dolls ?

Everything about Native American culture screams of their religious beliefs.

In everything there is a spirit...so, it would be kind of hard to sell anything Native American without recognizing it's religious significance to their culture.

In light of this, I would have to say that your statement is completely false.

That's probably the way it SHOULD be, but that simply isn't the case.

If the Native American religion can be perpetuated in the name of the Almighty dollar, why can't Creationist's do the same ?

This book was APPROVED by all the proper committees to be put on the shelves...obviously, it has some subtsantial literary validity, or it wouldn't have been approved.

Well I have yet to see a native american book that was out to destroy other peoples "world views."

Did you even bother to read the article you posted? The book was mainly accepted because it was by an explorer and had some great pictures of the canyon.

Now, if these essays actually had valid science, why don't we see them being presented to proper peer review like real scientists do? Oh wait, I forgot, the evil evolutionist conspiracy that is out to destroy "the truth" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I also liked how the article pointed out the essays were written by people who have doctorates in science. What a great appeal to authority and ignorance. I guess that means if I get a Ph.D in engineering it makes an essay I write on brain surgery valid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

A lot of water in a short time tearing out hundreds of feet deep of ground?

Fucking hogwash. You could never get a high enough pressure to do that.

Perhaps you ought to study up on the effects of Mt. Saint Helens...

You apparently don't understand what an impact natural disaster can have on the environment.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Well I have yet to see a native american book that was out to destroy other peoples "world views."

Did you even bother to read the article you posted? The book was mainly accepted because it was by an explorer and had some great pictures of the canyon.

Now, if these essays actually had valid science, why don't we see them being presented to proper peer review like real scientists do? Oh wait, I forgot, the evil evolutionist conspiracy that is out to destroy "the truth" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I also liked how the article pointed out the essays were written by people who have doctorates in science. What a great appeal to authority and ignorance. I guess that means if I get a Ph.D in engineering it makes an essay I write on brain surgery valid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Creation Science doesn't seek out to destroy anyone's world view. In fact, there are so many Christians out there, that one could assert that EVOLUTION seeks to destroy OUR world views. Of course, it's ok for them to do it, but not Creationist's ? Science is science, no matter what angle you address it from. It should all be presented, and studied objectively.

YES I READ THE ARTICLE. Don't insult my intelligence, because it is worthless to do so. Address the specific article, please.

I have already addressed the outright LIE that Creation Science isn't published for peer review. That is such a nefarious belief that it can only logically be attributed to intentional perpetuation.

"Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies ('Developmental genetics of homoeosis', Advances in Genetics, 16:179–248, 1976). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices ('The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation "Science"', Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described 'as advocating scientific creationism' (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled 'Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport', Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer's argument would have flagged the paper as 'creationist'.

Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63(10):5068–5071, October 1992, 'Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.' I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

That is just a small sampling...I can give you a comprehensive list, if you would like. But trust me, these papers exist. Just because they aren't widely circulated and discussed doesn't show that they lack existence, rather they lack objective consideration.

Now, here is a perfect explanation of WHY the evolution community is largely misled into thinking that Creationist's don't publish their work:

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%" http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Simple fact of the matter is, we are incredibly outnumbered. The minority view is not often widely circulated, in case you haven't noticed.

Along those same lines, Creation is not a popular subject. People fear what they don't understand, and seek to destroy it. No one likes change...and they don't like to be wrong. This is what Creation Science brings to the table.

"Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

To claim that there is no bias amongst the scientific community regarding the validity of the scientific aspects of Creationism is fallacy.

And the sources cited that held PhD's shows that INTELLIGENT people agreed. Meaning, you don't have to be an accredited expert in the field you are pontificating about to understand it. The fact that these people have PhD's shows that they have the capacity to formulate logical decisions about information given to them.

To read deeper than that is an act of futility (either blatantly disregarding the premise, or remaining ignorant of the pretenses of citing such sources).

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-06-2005).]

The idea of peer review is that you let the OTHER side prove or disprove your point. What your saying is like repulicans saying the gop is fine and dandy. Like communists saying that communism is the best system.If you believe something to be true you'll either skew the facts to fit your views or leave out facts that you find "useless". You show me a secular scientests litany on how creation "science" is valid and then we'll talk.

I believe I have used the word "objectively" several times in this thread alone.

Publishing something doesn't make it correct. Of course I agree that Creation Science should be scrutinized, but it should be done so in the same capacity that evolutionary science is.

Creation Science is obviously not getting a fair shot, and that IS MY POINT.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://www.s8int.com/grandcanyon.html

None have said that the information contained in this book is inaccurate, yet they vehemently oppose it's presence.

WHY ?!

Get bent, dipshit. (http://www.cheesies.net/videos/interview4.wmv)

quote:"Creation Science doesn't seek out to destroy anyone's world view."

Your article says differently,

"...Not only does their theory crumble, but their world view crumbles with it."

Did you even bother to read it?



quote:"In fact, there are so many Christians out there, that one could assert that EVOLUTION seeks to destroy OUR world views."

I will remember to mention that the next time I talk to the Christian evolutionists I know. Evolution isn't out to destroy christianity, just another lie by creationists. Evolution does happen to contradict a certain view of the bible, just like the facts contradict your claims of out of place artifacts and pictures of flying machines in hieroglyphs. Damn those facts.



quote:"Science is science, no matter what angle you address it from. It should all be presented, and studied objectively. "

Good idea. So if a group was to say, "we refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts our claims." or something of that sort, they wouldn't be practicing science? Wow, look at how many creation science groups can now be labeled as just creation. Good job.



quote:"YES I READ THE ARTICLE. Don't insult my intelligence, because it is worthless to do so. Address the specific article, please. "

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Yes you are right, it is worthless to insult your intelligence, since it's non existent. So far the evidence says you haven't payed attention to that article. Damn evidence.



quote:"I have already addressed the outright LIE that Creation Science isn't published for peer review. That is such a nefarious belief that it can only logically be attributed to intentional perpetuation. "

So you have already addressed the LIE, yet you posted nothing about creation science. Where are the papers showing the global flood happened? Where are the papers showing the grand canyon was carved by the flood, etc. None of this is actually creation science. Again, if the creationist claims about the grand canyon are valid, why aren't they being presented to peer review journals?



quote:"Simple fact of the matter is, we are incredibly outnumbered. The minority view is not often abundantly perpetuated. "

Ha, every scientific theory started as a minority view. Evolution, Relativity, Big Bang, Germ theory, just to name a few. Sorry, you can't hide behind the minority claim.



quote:"People fear what they don't understand, and seek to destroy it. No one likes change...and they don't like to be wrong. "

What a great summary of creationism. Many fear evolution, many creationist groups sign clauses to prevent change, and to prevent having to admit they are wrong.



quote:"To claim that there is no bias amongst the scientific community regarding the validity of Scientific Creationism is fallacy. "

I never said there wasn't a bias. Of course there is a bias, when creationist claims have been shown to be wrong time and time again. Yet evidence stands alone. If creationists could produce valid theories supported by real evidence (all the evidence) then things would change.



quote:"And the sources cited that held PhD's shows that INTELLIGENT people agreed. Meaning, you don't have to be an accredited expert in the field you are pontificating about to understand it. The fact that these people have PhD's shows that they have the capacity to formulate logical decisions about information given to them. "

This is called appeal to authority. Just because they are Intelligent in one field means nothing about another, it also means nothing about their decision making. Many creationists accept main stream science, until it falls into the realm of creationism, then it's bunk, a conspiracy to destroy christianity. Religion can sometimes fuck logic.



quote:"To read deeper than that is an act of futility. "

Yet you did. You jumped from "Intelligent people" to, they don't have to be accredited to understand a field and the Ph.D means they can formulate logical decisions.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Perhaps you ought to study up on the effects of Mt. Saint Helens...

You apparently don't understand what an impact natural disaster can have on the environment.

No. It is you who have to study up on Mt. St. Helens.

You apparently do not understand that it would be physically impossible for the flood to have created the Grand Canyon.



" 1. The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

2. The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

3. The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4. The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

5. The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Ironically it is the creationists that aren't allowing creationist science a "fair shot" as that would mean it could be disproven.

It is creation scientists who have retreated away from peer review and formed their own groups. These groups require their members to state creationism is true Before they can peer review papers. They also require their members to ignore evidence that contradicts creationism.

Creationists are the ones who don't submit their papers to non creationist peer reviews. Peer reviews that don't have the nice soft cushion creationist peer reviews have.

When creation science is scrutinized at the level of evolution (that means not assuming something is right until the evidence supports it, viewing all the evidence and siting sources) it breaks down. That is not acceptable to creation scientists, so they run and hide and shout "conspiracy" often using christianity as a pawn to support their baseless claims of conspiracy.





quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I believe I have used the word "objectively" several times in this thread alone.

Publishing something doesn't make it correct. Of course I agree that Creation Science should be scrutinized, but it should be done so in the same capacity that evolutionary science is.

Creation Science is obviously not getting a fair shot, and that IS MY POINT.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Then why is it that there is a shop at the south rim of the Grand Canyon that is dedicated to nothing but Native Americans and their heritage, to include medicine wheels, dream catchers, and Kachina dolls ?



Is a government run shop or a private one leasing it's land from the government?

quote:Originally posted by Chavez:

Just as science is scary to religon, religon is scary to science.

They are cut from different cloths.

One is based on proof and one is based on faith neither is wrong per say but it all depends on the observer. I'd have to say that the view that the earth is less than 10000 years old is considered by most today to be pure fiction. It cannot be proved as far as I know but I will admit I am not yet omnipotent.

In many religious school and communities they cut scientific theories of evolution out of the books. It's ridiculous when you're not even allowed to theorize...

Like we shouldn't understand or question our existance. We should just exist because we do. Lame. Questioning our existance is what sets us apart from other animals.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Because the national parks service being a government department and all can not show preference for one religion over another.

Hmmm lets see....

Then is abortion a debate with the government?

Why gay marriage?

Seperation of church and state is bullshit. The christians have a huge say. I think bush even said abortion is against gods will himself or some shit.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

In many religious school and communities they cut scientific theories of evolution out of the books. It's ridiculous when you're not even allowed to theorize...

Like we shouldn't understand or question our existance. We should just exist because we do. Lame. Questioning our existance is what sets us apart from other animals.

Cheers,

Lost

What schools(denomination wise)?

I was mostly thinking of Hutterites, Mormons, Menenites, etc...

Cheers,

Lost

Digital_Savior, I don't think you understand how science works. If someone makes a scientific claim that somebody else disagrees with, even if the claim is in the minority, others will go out of their way to disprove it. Every creationist claim about the Grand Canyon has been disproven, the article makes it clear. The only purpose the book has is to present the untrue as fact.

It's propaganda with no basis. It has no reason to be endorsed by anyone.

word of the day, from that elders guy's critique of the creationist book:

"bibliolatry" - absolute dependence on a group of sacred writings as infallible.

fun word to pronounce.

what i find sad/funny about all this is that the 'born-again' demographic is increasingly becoming a target for exploitation by corporations.

Now that I have read the article I don't see what all the fuss is about. They did not remove the book from the store, they moved to the inspirational reading section of the store.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I was mostly thinking of Hutterites, Mormons, Menenites, etc...

Cheers,

Lost

Mennonite schools, including home schools, teach from government approved texts and don't cut parts out. This is true even for Old Colony. Evolution is taught as a scientific theory, but it is made plain that while the students are required to learn it, they are under no obligation to believe it.

As for questioning, you have obviously never been stuck at a Mennonite family gathering once the discussion turns religious. They question and debate EVERYTHING, up to and including the existence of their own god. In English, German, Russian, and Spanish, ad nauseum!

(At least among my in-laws, which include Old Colony, Black Bumper, and Christmas Trees among them)

Absent

P.S. Those are the common names for the three main varieties of Mennonites.

P.P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right about the Hutterites though - those are closed colonies and get a little weird (i.e.'stud' fees) at times.

Time for a slightly new spin on this article.

You guys noticed that the date of this link is from nearly a year and a half ago, well I read about this story a couple of months back in a newspaper. The story wasn't very long, but it mentioned that the Bush administration had decided to stand by its decision not to have this book removed. *coff coff*separationofchurchandstate*coff coff*

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

*coff coff*separationofchurchandstate*coff coff*

seperation of church and state is not in the declaration, the constitution, or the amendments.

I would assume that Bush would have been upholding one or all of these: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

seperation of church and state is not in the declaration, the constitution, or the amendments.

I would assume that Bush would have been upholding one or all of these: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

It's implied through the Freedom of Religion part; look through the founding father's writings, yes, they were often religous, but they were determined to keep religion and state separate because they have a tendancy of corrupting the fuck out of eachother, moreso than they can do to themselves internally.

Whoa, guys...I have been out of commission for a few days. My thread has gotten quite a bit of attention.

Forgive my neglect. I will reply as soon as I can.

God bless.

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Digital_Savior, I don't think you understand how science works. If someone makes a scientific claim that somebody else disagrees with, even if the claim is in the minority, others will go out of their way to disprove it. Every creationist claim about the Grand Canyon has been disproven, the article makes it clear. The only purpose the book has is to present the untrue as fact.

It's propaganda with no basis. It has no reason to be endorsed by anyone.

Actually, they haven't been disproven, and I will get to addressing that as soon as I have the time to dedicate to such a lengthy subject.

This applies to the links Rust posted as well. They will be addressed.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Now that I have read the article I don't see what all the fuss is about. They did not remove the book from the store, they moved to the inspirational reading section of the store.

Ok, you're right.

The problem is that the writings of one scientist are being suppressed...and the premise is religious affiliation.

If he was a buddhist monk, and said the same things he said in his book, I doubt very much that this would have been an issue.

This book isn't religious (therefore shouldn't be put into the "religious" section"). It uses science the way it was meant to be used; the conclusion of which can only point to Intelligent Design, and thus a Creator.

The point shouldn't be the "outcome" of the science used, however, but the science itself.

Using the same methods, the same observance, and the same information, a different conclusion has been made about the existence of our universe.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's possible.", it is automatically shot down as a legitimate scientific theory, because of the theological implications.

If God is the answer to the question, how can we ignore it ?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Time for a slightly new spin on this article.

You guys noticed that the date of this link is from nearly a year and a half ago, well I read about this story a couple of months back in a newspaper. The story wasn't very long, but it mentioned that the Bush administration had decided to stand by its decision not to have this book removed. *coff coff*separationofchurchandstate*coff coff*

As Xtreem pointed out, Separation of Church and State is such a misunderstood concept, it would be embarassing to those who tout it as a defense against Republicans if they really knew what they were talking about.

Thomas Jefferson talked about separation of Church and State, but it was never IN the Constitution, as many people would like to believe.

The statement was made in a letter Jefferson wrote to another person.

It was also not meant in the context that most people think, either.

It was a statement to say that we should prevent tyranny of either government, or religion over either establishment, to include the people.

It was not to say that NO religious influence ought to be found anywhere in American government.

It is also not to say that government shouldn't regulate religion to a certain degree.

Neither should CONTROL the other, and in thinking this, he was right.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

seperation of church and state is not in the declaration, the constitution, or the amendments.

I would assume that Bush would have been upholding one or all of these: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

Incorrect.

From the third article of the Bill of Rights (what became the first amendement):

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As for interpreting this, I have to post DSs statement first:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thomas Jefferson talked about separation of Church and State, but it was never IN the Constitution, as many people would like to believe.

The statement was made in a letter Jefferson wrote to another person.

It was also not meant in the context that most people think, either.

It was a statement to say that we should prevent tyranny of either government, or religion over either establishment, to include the people.

It was not to say that NO religious influence ought to be found anywhere in American government.

OK, first of all it is immaterial whether Jeffersons statement about the meaning of the admendment was in the precise wording of the consitution or not. The point is that we know his intentions from his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

quote:Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

This kind of insight is precisely what constitutional lawyers spend their lives trying to discover through debate, and here we have his intentions spelled out clearly. The operative phrase in this letter has been highlighted in bold, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". With that in mind, how can you defend your previous statement, "It was not to say that NO religious influence ought to be found anywhere in American government." "Wall of separation" seems to suggest precisely that.

A wall os separation that is traversed in the ludicrous decision of the Bush administration to support this book being sold in stores that are public, not private. If we debate whether creationism is right or wrong we're entirely missing the point that the actions of the government are beyond its jurisdiction.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If he was a buddhist monk, and said the same things he said in his book, I doubt very much that this would have been an issue.

This book isn't religious (therefore shouldn't be put into the "religious" section"). It uses science the way it was meant to be used; the conclusion of which can only point to Intelligent Design, and thus a Creator.

If he was a buddhist monk, the Bush administration wouldn't be supporting his book, which is the core of this debate.

The final sentence in what I just quoted is wildly misleading. To imply that the "only" conclusion of science is that there is a Creator is pure speculation presented as fact, which as it happens is precisely what this Grand Canyon book is as well. This book defies scientific knowledge, what part of him being a Young Earth Creationist who advocates the world being less than 10,000 years old didn't you understand?

Foolish earthling...

quote:Posted by ImperfectCircle

Incorrect.

From the third article of the Bill of Rights (what became the first amendement):



quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

He was referring specifically to the phrase, "Separation of Church and State."

Your misunderstanding of his post doesn't make him incorrect.

When did essays written under the belief,

"Creationism is right, and anything that contradicts this is wrong."

Become science?

When did it become something besides religion?



I think most people know Seperation of church and state aren't really in the constitution. What some people don't seem to know is that the constitution was written as a frame work and a couple hundred years of rulings has fleshed out it's own definition of things such as the establishment clause.

quote:Posted by ImperfectCircle:

OK, first of all it is immaterial whether Jeffersons statement about the meaning of the admendment was in the precise wording of the consitution or not. The point is that we know his intentions from his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Immaterial to someone that doesn't want to admit that it is not a LAW, nor a tenet of the American government to suppress everything religious, in order to thwart any effects it may have on it's processes.

People who don't follow any religion just LOVE to quote Jefferson in his letter, yet they fail to realize that this was his own personal opinion, and NOT a part of our established governing laws.

That was my point.

It is totally relevant.

quote:This kind of insight is precisely what constitutional lawyers spend their lives trying to discover through debate, and here we have his intentions spelled out clearly. The operative phrase in this letter has been highlighted in bold, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". With that in mind, how can you defend your previous statement, "It was not to say that NO religious influence ought to be found anywhere in American government." "Wall of separation" seems to suggest precisely that.

A letter to some of Jefferson's religious counterparts certainly doesn't set in stone any of his ideas.

This is what he believed was right.

As you can clearly see, it is NOT included in the Constitution.

Another thing that seems to be abundantly ignored is that he was a deeply religious man. He believed in God...as did most of the other members of congress.

So much for the saying, "Our country wasn't founded on religious beliefs." (you didn't say that, just thought it was appropriate to include it in my post)

quote:A wall os separation that is traversed in the ludicrous decision of the Bush administration to support this book being sold in stores that are public, not private. If we debate whether creationism is right or wrong we're entirely missing the point that the actions of the government are beyond its jurisdiction.

While you have a very valid point, I must ask: where is the line between what a President personally endorses, based on his personal religious beliefs, and what he endorses using his political muscle ?

Did he make some sort of legislative move to FORCE the public to put this book in the scientific section of any given bookstore ?

Is it wrong for him to support a work that has satisfactorily met all standards for publishing, as well as receiving approval from an entire board of members, regarding the display of this book ?

By discreditting this literature, without any proof, we can conclude that this is bigotry, and nothing more.

If President Bush didn't defend the author against such atrocities, then he wouldn't be worth the skeet he loves to shoot.

I would expect him to intervene against this kind of blackballing for ANY reputable, legitimate work of literature...no matter the genre.

quote:If he was a buddhist monk, the Bush administration wouldn't be supporting his book, which is the core of this debate.

The final sentence in what I just quoted is wildly misleading. To imply that the "only" conclusion of science is that there is a Creator is pure speculation presented as fact, which as it happens is precisely what this Grand Canyon book is as well. This book defies scientific knowledge, what part of him being a Young Earth Creationist who advocates the world being less than 10,000 years old didn't you understand?

Foolish earthling...

Your assumption that Bush would do nothing in defense of a Buddhist is nothing but opinion. Since it has never happened, and we have very little to compare this situation to, I would venture to say that you haven't got a clue how he would handle it.

I personally feel that he would, if it gained national attention, as this Creation book has.

You can't keep people from interpretting science in different ways. Period.

From a Creationist point of view, God IS the only answer to the questions presented in science regarding our origin. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Since I am a Creationist, I felt that this point would be obvious to you. My apologies.

Evolution is passed off as fact, yet it is mostly speculation as well. Why is it ok for evolution to make up excuses for the holes in the theory, and not ok for Creation to say, "It is this way !" Either assertion can only be accepted by their supporters, and should not be suppressed.

Have you read the book ? How do YOU know it defies scientific knowledge ? *pffft* I guarantee you can't explain Creationism to me, without scouring several Creationist sites first, copy and pasting, and presenting jaded opinions.

I have a DVD series that about 10 people on Totse have signed up for so far, refuting evolution. if you would like a copy, I would be more than happy to send you one. Email me at ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com with your address. In the title of the email, put "TOTSE" in capitals. I have a lot of junk mail in that account, and it is difficult to weed out the good from the bad.

The teacher in these seminars does tours in the Grand Canyon, and knows it's structures intimately.

The author of the book in question is a friend of Russ Miller, the teacher in the seminars.

The earth IS less than 10,000 years old, and to prove that we can use science.

Please believe that the truth is out there. Simply because it has not been presented to you does not mean it does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://www.s8int.com/grandcanyon.html

None have said that the information contained in this book is inaccurate, yet they vehemently oppose it's presence.

WHY ?!

Read about the ancient nuclear reactors. Now thats interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

When did essays written under the belief,

"Creationism is right, and anything that contradicts this is wrong."

Become science?

When did it become something besides religion?



I think most people know Seperation of church and state aren't really in the constitution. What some people don't seem to know is that the constitution was written as a frame work and a couple hundred years of rulings has fleshed out it's own definition of things such as the establishment clause.

It's not an essay, first of all.

Creation has been published many times over. Do some research, and you will find it.

I bring that up because this isn't a scientific "theory", BASED off of theology.

It is scientific study that points to Intelligent Design, which means we "began" when God created us.

Evolution, in turn, is a RELIGION !

RELIGION: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Does this definition NOT apply to evolutionist's ? They are some of the most fanatical people I know !

There is nothing wrong with that...have conviction in what you believe, no matter what it is.

However, bias runs rampant throughout the science community, and this cannot be ignored. To say there is no room for God in science is fallacy. To say there is no room for science in religion is also fallacy.

You are exactly right, though...humanity has "fleshed out" the Constitution, for sure. *laughs*

'Your article says differently,

"...Not only does their theory crumble, but their world view crumbles with it."

Did you even bother to read it?"

To destroy their worldveiw is an active verb. If creationism is correct their worldveiw falls. Its passive there. Their worldveiw collapse is merely a coincidence of the validity of a supposedly factual event.

It would do you well to learn basic english.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Another thing that seems to be abundantly ignored is that he was a deeply religious man. He believed in God...as did most of the other members of congress.

So much for the saying, "Our country wasn't founded on religious beliefs." (you didn't say that, just thought it was appropriate to include it in my post)

Logical fallacy! Undistributed middle (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/undist.htm). While he was religious, that does not automatically imply that he founded the country on religious sentiments. In fact, the founding fathers did more of what French theist and deist philosophes of the Enlightenment proposed than their religion. In fact, all meshings of religion and government are inconsequential of their cause: the same ideals were propsed by the philosophes which the founding fathers followed so well. Seperation of powers, religious freedom, even the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness" (written originally as "life, liberty, and property") are taken directly from the philosophes! Political doubletalking word-games may impress the deaf, but lo, not those who can hear what it is you say!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Your assumption that Bush would do nothing in defense of a Buddhist is nothing but opinion. Since it has never happened, and we have very little to compare this situation to, I would venture to say that you haven't got a clue how he would handle it.

I personally feel that he would, if it gained national attention, as this Creation book has.

You just contradicted yourself. He expressed his feelings, which you denounced as wrong in paragraph one, then you present your own? You can't hold a double-standard.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why is it ok for evolution to make up excuses for the holes in the theory, and not ok for Creation to say, "It is this way !" Either assertion can only be accepted by their supporters, and should not be suppressed.

1) Because the scientists who work on evolution and the non-dickhole ones who believe it (admitting that there are total pricks who offend people with their belief in evolution) assert that it, like all science, is variable should new evidence come but that we should not cheat ourselves out of an answer because we don't know for certain. They are areas that are currently being worked on.

2) Your point about each having equal merit is, on its surface, a good one. You yourself though are intolerant of evolution being accepted. This can be looked over, though. Most people are the same way. Though that just means most need to change.

Remember what was said before (and this goes to everyone on both sides being dicks): just because all of us don't agree doesn't give us license to attack them personally as each side has done. It doesn't give license to lie or contort fact, as both sides have done. If you can't debate and win without using trickery then you do not deserve to win a debate about something that is,a t its core, deeply personal.

[This message has been edited by Gorloche (edited 05-10-2005).]

quote:It's not an essay, first of all.

From the article,

"Grand Canyon: A Different View is the 2003 work of Tom Vail, who collected essays from 23 contributors"



quote:Creation has been published many times over. Do some research, and you will find it.

So has the moon hoax belief, doesn't make it science. If you mean published in proper peer review journals, nope, creation theory has Not been published. When I say creation theory I mean the specific detailed theory of creationism, such as the belief that the grand canyon was formed by a single global flood only a couple thousand years ago.



quote:Evolution, in turn, is a RELIGION !

RELIGION: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Does this definition NOT apply to evolutionist's ? They are some of the most fanatical people I know !

Sure thing. It can also be applied to stamp collecting, what's your point? You do know words have multiple definitions, trying to use one definition when it is obvious they mean another is dishonest.



quote:However, bias runs rampant throughout the science community, and this cannot be ignored. To say there is no room for God in science is fallacy.

Yes, bias against false claims does run rampant through the science community. Haven't we already been over this? Practically every theory was the underdog at one point, the fact that creationism is an underdog doesn't make a right or mean there is a conspiracy against it.

How is it a fallacy?

Can science prove God?

Is "God did it" valid science?



quote:You are exactly right, though...humanity has "fleshed out" the Constitution, for sure. *laughs*

Good way to dodge facts. I like it.

QUOTE Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Incorrect.

From the third article of the Bill of Rights (what became the first amendement):

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;



umm, to me, this says that the government will not make a law that establishes a state religion or any law that stops people from worshipping (how they see fit).

and i think this makes sense because i think that is why many people came to the new world.. to escape governments that told the people how to worship.



i dont think that the Bill is saying that Bush(government) should have the book removed (even if it were on government land) because that would be violating exactly what the Bill was there to protect in the first place i.e. freedoms of religion, press and speech.

quote:quote:I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Bush was not trying to 'establish a religion' nor was he 'prohibiting free exercise'. He was stating that the government will not cause or require the book removed; and by this, he was allowing free exercise of religion.

With that in mind, how can you defend your previous statement, "It was not to say that NO religious influence ought to be found anywhere in American government." "Wall of separation" seems to suggest precisely that.

I strongly disagree. By having that "wall", it keeps the gov. from mandating what and how to worship. And it also keeps religion from controling the gov.

A wall os separation that is traversed in the ludicrous decision of the Bush administration to support this book being sold in stores that are public, not private.

I would agree with you completely, if the government was saying the book must be in the store for sale. But it is not. The gov. is just saying that it will not have it removed, because to uphold the Bill, it should not force the book to stay or not.



If we debate whether creationism is right or wrong we're entirely missing the point that the actions of the government are beyond its jurisdiction.

As for me, i didnt feel that this part of the debate in this thread had anything to do with the validity or lack of, of creationism.

It is a federal park, so it is not beyond the jurisdiction of the fed. gov. Somebody got all pissy that the book contadicted what they saw as right (by noticing in the book that it gives credit to the Judeo-Christian GOD, and not to scientists' view of billions of years of natural origin). They felt that the gov. was endorsing creationism. It was the pissy ones that missed the point.

If he was a buddhist monk, the Bush administration wouldn't be supporting his book, which is the core of this debate.

Is the administration really supporting this book? Or are they really saying that the Bill is meant to allow this book to be for sale, and in effect, really supporting the freedoms that we have.

I havent been to the Grand Canyon since 1985 (about 9 months before i got out of the Army), so i do not recall what types of books were in the giftshop (obviously, this was before this book was published). But i would not be surprised if today the shop had "New Age" stuff, or anything that some people would consider as hogwash but others would take as truth (maybe, for instance, horoscopes). I dont see anyone getting all pissy to the gov. to have those removed.

This book defies scientific knowledge, what part of him being a Young Earth Creationist who advocates the world being less than 10,000 years old didn't you understand? /QUOTE

Interesting. Science is billed as 'self-correcting' but people believe it as the 'gospel truth'.

Foolish earthling...

I tried, but i cant resist...

Which are you?: a)foolish b.)earthling c.)the pot calling the kettle

signed, the kettle aka xtreem

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

the fact that creationism is an underdog doesn't make a right or mean there is a conspiracy against it.

right now i'm not saying there is or isnt, i am only asking a question.

Are you saying that there is not a conspiracy against creationism?

Yep. There is no giant scientific conspiracy to try and supress the truth of creationism or God.

How do I know? Maybe I'm one of them?

I did my research. I've read creationist papers and science papers.

In school, sometimes you get an F because you handed in a bad assignment, not because there is a conspiracy of anti-you teachers out to flunk you. Just like this, sometimes creationist research is just poor, incorrect or frauds. There isn't a giant group of scientists that gets together to prevent creationists from publishing quality research.

With the research I learned that sometimes the conspiracy is lied about, such as the "Evolution is out to destroy God" claim. It's just not true. It only shows creationist beliefs aren't true (although creationist appears to be some peoples God, so in that case they are right).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Perhaps you ought to study up on the effects of Mt. Saint Helens...

You apparently don't understand what an impact natural disaster can have on the environment.

Mt. Saint Helens was all the force from underneath exploding out the top. This is understandable, condiering the extreme pressures and forces the inner earth has.

That's a hell of a lot different from a ton of water at fantastically high pressures suddenly bursting down on a stretch of wasteland in northern Arizona from out of nowhere. The pressure of the atmosphere is perhaps a millionth, even a billionth of that inside the earth.

Archeologists know much more about the way the earth was formed than you do, to compare the grand canyon to a volcano is a false analogy.

And as for the Native American merchandise being sold, can you tell me a single thing about any given Native American belief system? I highly doubt anyone buys those products for any reason but the novelty of the item. Do you know how many people practice Native American beliefs nowadays? Not very many.