posted 04-09-2001 05:33 PM            

I'm not sure if I'm promoting the prolongment of the god threads by starting this one. I really had to say it. At any rate, this is just an opinion. Don't fucking attack me, I'm PMSing. Au revoir.

posted 04-09-2001 05:47 PM            

May I suggest that you just ignore those threads? That will likely ease your frustrations without limiting the folks who enjoy them.

posted 04-09-2001 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrs.Affleck:
I must confess that I have visited the "Is There A God" thread. I think the main problem (or what bothers me) is that there is a lot of name-calling going on right now. I hate to say this, but I really don't think anyone will change their opinion because of a thread. Not to say that discussing a topic is useless, but people can feel strongly one way or another about the existence of a God, and therefore such threads incite lots of anger and defensiveness. I'm agreeing with Sachet, I think that the threads should be allowed but for those who prefer not to join them, they can ignore them.

---

posted 04-10-2001 04:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachet:
I can tell that you're really sick of the discussions, cc. But the people who participate in them seem to enjoy discussing the subject.

May I suggest that you just ignore those threads? That will likely ease your frustrations without limiting the folks who enjoy them.

And choclate. Lots and lots of choclate!

---

G'morning! Why do you alway have the right things to say?! You're right, I'm really frustrated with them, because I saw the fourth thread pertaining to GOD in this page. I do try to ignore them, I just find myself being pissed (maybe the problem is with me?)

Well, it's been a good morning so far for me,I hope it's the same for you. Paalam.

posted 04-10-2001 04:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrs.Affleck:
I must confess that I have visited the "Is There A God" thread. I think the main problem (or what bothers me) is that there is a lot of name-calling going on right now. I hate to say this, but I really don't think anyone will change their opinion because of a thread. Not to say that discussing a topic is useless, but people can feel strongly one way or another about the existence of a God, and therefore such threads incite lots of anger and defensiveness. I'm agreeing with Sachet, I think that the threads should be allowed but for those who prefer not to join them, they can ignore them.

---

I third the second the motion. Believe you me, I'm not trying to ban any topics. It's just..........I don't know, tiring to see?

cc

posted 04-10-2001 04:46 AM            

I think there's actually a very legitimate purpose the God threads serve on this board. In any kind of writing, the writer's philosophy comes through in their work. Belief in God, or lack thereof, lays the foundation for many other philosophical principles. To explore ones beliefs, even hotly, seems a legitimate exercise for writers. Maybe if you think of it in those terms, it won't bother you as much.

posted 04-10-2001 06:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sachet:
CC, I can understand your frustration, I really can. I know that when I used to see 10 topics posted by Isabel or 24 by slk, it drove me nuts. I actually talked to Isabel about it, but Isabel just likes posting new threads and politely told me so. I don't know what slk's motives were, but rather than talk to her about it, I just started bumping others I liked that had gotten to page 2, 3, or 4. I've noticed that lately, slk hasn't started so many new threads. Don't know why but I breathe a sigh of relief that there are more different names on the board. Guess I just like everyone to have a chance to have their say without one or two people dominating the discussions. Something like that.

I think there's actually a very legitimate purpose the God threads serve on this board. In any kind of writing, the writer's philosophy comes through in their work. Belief in God, or lack thereof, lays the foundation for many other philosophical principles. To explore ones beliefs, even hotly, seems a legitimate exercise for writers. Maybe if you think of it in those terms, it won't bother you as much.

How you doing on that chocolate?

---

HEH. I concur, slk was/is pretty damn annoying, but I've learned to accept that she's that way.

I've thought about the god thread serving a purpose on these boards. I understand the need to explore and ponder on such a subjective topic as god, as to have a stable foundation to base all of their philosphical principles. I too, am yearning to completely believe in God. I am an agnostic (and hate it) I feel so...incomplete. Discussing it only irritates me. I don't know why!

P.S.
I allow myself to have chocolate once in 3 months. Maybe I should make an exception... I am waaaay to concerned with my health. YUCK!

P.P.S.
Thanks for your help, Sachet. I really appreciate it.

posted 04-10-2001 07:26 AM            

however, the defense of the name calling, if you've been there for 3200 posts and people still won't surrender certain facts it becomes extra-ordinarily upsetting( I like writing extra-ordinarily with the hyphen b/c I like the pronunciation better). sure, I've acted like an asshole but hey, these things happen.

Lolo

posted 04-10-2001 07:35 AM            

If I was still a teenager, I'd know where you could score some fine Acapulco Gold to take the pain away.

posted 04-10-2001 08:07 AM            

Just a few more thoughts to ponder.

posted 04-10-2001 08:10 AM            

I'm hugging you, too. Oh, let me!

posted 04-10-2001 08:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lune12:
To be fair, all the God discussion ad nauseum has made me realize how little I care about thinking about religion and God. But by all means keep chatting it up if you're getting something out of the discussion. I like to tackle the Big Questions like "why are grape tomatos so dang tasty-sweet? mmmm..." And "Why is its possessive? How can I re-train myself to properly use the words its it's your you're? And is there such a thing as its'?" And how do they grow those intsy-bitsy corns in Chinese stir frys?

---

Hi, Lune! I believe those little ears of corn that have been showing up in your Chinese take-out are ones Tom Hanks' character didn't eat in the movie, Big, so I wouldn't eat any more of 'em, if I were you!

Oh, and NEVER its', always its.

posted 04-10-2001 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by psichick:
[B] Hi, Lune! I believe those little ears of corn that have been showing up in your Chinese take-out are ones Tom Hanks' character didn't eat in the movie, Big, so I wouldn't eat any more of 'em, if I were you!

Oh, and NEVER its', always its.

/B]

---

posted 04-10-2001 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrs.Affleck:
I must confess that I have visited the "Is There A God" thread. I think the main problem (or what bothers me) is that there is a lot of name-calling going on right now. I hate to say this, but I really don't think anyone will change their opinion because of a thread...

---

At this point, Iwould be satisfied if people would realize that "Intelligent Design" is NOT a legitimate scientific theory. It is a con game, a ploy by fundamentalist Christians, to have a story about "God" creating life on this planet in high schools, so the ministers can go back into their churches and Sunday school groups and say "Even your high school admits the possibility that God created the universe, so our story about seven days of Creation must be credible." And it simply isn't credible in any way. It desccribes a flat earth with a dome over it, and the sun and moon and stars move across the surface of the dome, and there is water above the stars/dome which falls as rain, and at the very top God lives in (either three or seven) heavens. Just the sort of nonsense the true Creator of the Universe would have written, right?

Maybe if you read the "Is there a God?" thread with an open mind, you WOULD learn something about how hokey religion is.

posted 04-10-2001 10:34 AM            

Darwin's Theory Faces Challenge From New Approach to Creation

By James Glanz

New York Times
http://www.sfgate.com

4-9-1

When Kansas school officials restored the theory of evolution to statewide education standards a few weeks ago, biologists might have been inclined to declare victory over creationism.

Instead, some evolutionists say, the latter stages of the battle in Kansas, along with new efforts in Michigan and Pennsylvania as well as in a number of universities and even in Washington, suggest that the issue is far from settled.

This time, though, the evolutionists find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent-design theory.

Proponents of this theory, led by a group of academics and intellectuals and including some biblical creationists, accept that the earth is billions of years old, not the thousands of years suggested by a literal reading of the Bible.

But they dispute the idea that natural selection -- the force that Darwin suggested drove evolution -- is enough to explain the complexity of the Earth's plants and animals. That complexity, they say, must be the work of an intelligent designer.

This designer may be much like the biblical God, proponents say, but they are open to other explanations, like the proposition that life was seeded by a meteorite from elsewhere in the cosmos or the new-age philosophy that the universe is suffused with a mysterious but inanimate life force.

In recent months, the proponents of intelligent design have advanced their case on several fronts.

* In Kansas, after the backlash against the traditional biblical creationism, proponents of the design theory have become the dominant anti- evolution force, though they lost an effort to have theories like intelligent design considered on an equal basis with evolution in school curriculums.

* In Michigan, nine legislators in the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to amend state education standards to put intelligent design on an equal basis with evolution.

* In Pennsylvania, where biblical creationists and design theorists have operated in concert, state officials are close to adopting educational standards that would allow the teaching of theories on the origin of life other than evolution.

* Backers of intelligent design organized university-sanctioned conferences at Yale and Baylor last year, and the movement has spawned at least one university student organization -- called Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness, or the IDEA club -- at the University of California at San Diego.

* The Discovery Institute, a research institute in Seattle that promotes conservative causes, organized a briefing on intelligent design last year on Capitol Hill for prominent members of Congress.

"They are skilled in analyzing evidence and ideas," said Rep. Tom Petri, R- Wis., one of several members of Congress who were hosts at the session in a congressional hearing room. "They are making a determined effort to attempt to present the intelligent-design theory, and ask that it be judged by normal scientific criteria."

Polls show that about 45 percent of Americans say they believe in creationism. George W. Bush took the position in the presidential campaign that children should be exposed to the theories of both creationism and evolution in school.

Supporters of Darwin see the intelligent-design theory as more insidious than creationism, especially given that many of its advocates have mainstream scientific credentials, which creationists often lack.

"The most striking thing about the intelligent-design folks is their potential to really make anti-evolutionism intellectually respectable," said Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, which promotes the teaching of evolution.

Dr. Adrian Melott, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and a member of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group that helped win the restoration of evolution to the state education standards, said the design theory was finding adherents among doctors, engineers and people with degrees in the humanities.

Intelligent design is "the language that the creationists among the student body tend to use now," Melott said.

One of the first arguments for the design theory was set out in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (Simon & Schuster, 1996), by Dr. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe argued that various biochemical structures in cells could not have been built in a stepwise Darwinian fashion.

Since then, the movement has gained support among a few scientists in other disciplines, most of them conservative Christians.

"I'm very impressed with the level of scientific work and the level of scientific dialogue among the leaders of the design movement," said Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle. The theory "warrants further research," Gonzalez said.

Leaders of the design movement also look for flaws in evolutionist thinking and its presentation, and they have scored heavily by publicizing embarrassing mistakes in prominent biology textbooks.

"There is a legitimate intellectual project here," said Dr. William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design who has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago and who is on the faculty at Baylor, which receives a small part of its financing from the Texas Baptist Convention. "It is not creationism. There's not a commitment to Genesis literalism."

Dembski conceded that his interest in alternatives to Darwinian theory was partly brought on by the fact that he is an evangelical Christian, but he said intelligent design can withstand strict scientific scrutiny.

"The religious conviction played a role," he said. But he added, "As far as making me compromise in my work, that's the last thing I want to do."

Evolutionary biologists maintain that the arguments of intelligent design do not survive scrutiny, but they concede that a specialist's knowledge of particular mathematical or biological disciplines is often needed to clinch the point.

"I would use the words 'devilishly clever,' " said Dr. Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, speaking of the way the theory is constructed. "It has an appeal to intellectuals who don't know anything about evolutionary biology, first of all because the proponents have PhDs and second of all because it's not written in the sort of populist, folksy, anti-intellectual style. It's written in the argot of academia."

Despite that gloss, Dr. Leonard Krishtalka, a biologist and director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, said recently, "Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism dressed in a cheap tuxedo."

Dembski said his rather vague doubts about Darwinism did not take scientific shape until he attended an academic conference in 1988, just after finishing his doctoral thesis. The conference explored the difficulty of preparing perfectly random strings of numbers, which are important in cryptography, computer science and statistics.

One problem is that seemingly random strings often contain patterns discernible only with mathematical tests. Dembski wondered whether he could devise a way to find evidence of related patterns in the randomness of nature.

Dembski eventually developed what he called a mathematical "explanatory filter" that he asserted can distinguish randomness from complexity designed by an intelligent agent. He explained this idea in "The Design Inference" (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Dembski has applied his explanatory filter to the biochemical structures in cells -- and concluded that blind natural selection could not have created them.

But in a detailed critique of Dembski's filter theory, published in the current issue of the magazine the Skeptical Inquirer, Dr. Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Kirksville, Mo., said that while Dembski's mathematics were impressive, his analysis was probably detecting only the complexity that evolution itself would normally produce.

"They have come up with something genuinely interesting in the information- theory arguments," Edis said of intelligent-design theorists. "At least they make an effort to get rid of some of the blatantly fundamentalist elements of creationism."

posted 04-10-2001 10:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lune12:
Ha ha! WOw now I continue my day with peace of mind. And no little corns...

---

posted 04-10-2001 10:45 AM            

Like there would not be so many Ben and Matt worshipping threads if you guys did not keep fueling them with your own replies.

As my dear ol' granpappy used to say, "Ignor
the 'lil buggers and they'll get bored and leave on their own."

posted 04-10-2001 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billhays:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FutureMrs.Affleck:
[b]I must confess that I have visited the "Is There A God" thread. I think the main problem (or what bothers me) is that there is a lot of name-calling going on right now. I hate to say this, but I really don't think anyone will change their opinion because of a thread...

---

At this point, Iwould be satisfied if people would realize that "Intelligent Design" is NOT a legitimate scientific theory. It is a con game, a ploy by fundamentalist Christians, to have a story about "God" creating life on this planet in high schools, so the ministers can go back into their churches and Sunday school groups and say "Even your high school admits the possibility that God created the universe, so our story about seven days of Creation must be credible." And it simply isn't credible in any way. It desccribes a flat earth with a dome over it, and the sun and moon and stars move across the surface of the dome, and there is water above the stars/dome which falls as rain, and at the very top God lives in (either three or seven) heavens. Just the sort of nonsense the true Creator of the Universe would have written, right?

Maybe if you read the "Is there a God?" thread with an open mind, you WOULD learn something about how hokey religion is.

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 04-10-2001 12:41 PM            

Wow. What a concept.

posted 04-10-2001 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billhays:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FutureMrs.Affleck:
[b]I must confess that I have visited the "Is There A God" thread. I think the main problem (or what bothers me) is that there is a lot of name-calling going on right now. I hate to say this, but I really don't think anyone will change their opinion because of a thread...

---

At this point, Iwould be satisfied if people would realize that "Intelligent Design" is NOT a legitimate scientific theory. It is a con game, a ploy by fundamentalist Christians, to have a story about "God" creating life on this planet in high schools, so the ministers can go back into their churches and Sunday school groups and say "Even your high school admits the possibility that God created the universe, so our story about seven days of Creation must be credible." And it simply isn't credible in any way. It desccribes a flat earth with a dome over it, and the sun and moon and stars move across the surface of the dome, and there is water above the stars/dome which falls as rain, and at the very top God lives in (either three or seven) heavens. Just the sort of nonsense the true Creator of the Universe would have written, right?

Maybe if you read the "Is there a God?" thread with an open mind, you WOULD learn something about how hokey religion is.

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 04-10-2001 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by uhuru1701:
CC,

If I was still a teenager, I'd know where you could score some fine Acapulco Gold to take the pain away.

PEACE,
uhuru1701

---

Well, pretend to be one! I'm not in pain, just annoyed. Das all!

cc

posted 04-10-2001 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AsRiaL:
This was my little addition to the God thread I think it sums it up nicely..

Just a few more thoughts to ponder.

---

AsRial, thanks for adding sprinkles of comic once in a while...

posted 04-10-2001 03:12 PM            

Dear Gravity,
Hmmm. How many times have you been on this forum? Your handle is quite unfamiliar. Diving into the subject at hand, IMHO, you are talking out of your ass. Let me elucidate how so: [b]"There would not be so many God Threads if people like you didn't keep going into them,"
Number 1: People start god threads not because people like [i]me[/] go into them, but because it is a subject that we are all inclined to ponder over. Believing in something is the essence of our existence, and what better way than to ponder over such a subjective issue than with a community of writers?
Number 2: "keeping them alive with your own replies that only make the regular posters there even more defensive." Either my eyes are so fucked up that these "defensive posters" are being defensive towards each other which are consequently "invisible" to my eyes, OR you're merely making rhetoric remarks for fuck's sake.

I was just annoyed by the quantity of god topics here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please- if you're out to pick a fight, you are definitely barking up the right tree.

posted 04-10-2001 03:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Real Muse:
Psichick,

Awesome article.

---

Muse - I thought it is a fair representation of how academics and politicians feel about it right now.

Happy to share what I find.