Merry Christmas,

Off topic but still an interesting discussion! These are from several posts.

Paul Newhouse posted:

Now we just do the Daylight Savings thing.

True enough.

As Peter Forden posted, the exact month isn't really known. It's the thought that counts.

Steve Caple posted:

A fellow of few words on this topic. This was in response to me saying; "In the case of school battles, Creationists don't demand that Darwin's theory be removed." But I stand by this. The only thing that comes close to a demand was when they wanted to place stickers in school science textbooks that reminded kids that evolution is still a theory (apparently since modern books forget to mention that bit of trivia). None of the major Creation Science organizations I know of propose removing the theory.

Peter Forden posted:

Hey. Model Railroaders get shoddy stuff for Christmas too.

Racists? Who was the old Catholic church racists against?

Wolf posted:

I'm split on the distraction point. No doubt the Bible can be over studied for it's historical properties but at the same time events, places, names, etc. must be there for a purpose. Personally, the fact so many Bible elements once thought a myth have turned up through archeological finds to be verified as fact, it could be assumed all the detailed history is also there to verify Scripture's accuracy over time which in turn can enhance, as you rightly say, what really matters.

True. Even the Pilgrims themselves didn't observe Christmas or most other holidays. But then again, considering their justified dislike for the Catholic church of the time it's not surprising they would distance themselves from anything that denomination had invented, but over generations these came to be seen as harmless events and eventually accepted. Curt posted:

I'll agree with the last half but I don't think anyone is going to Hell if they don't celebrate Christmas.

~Brad

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote: [...]

Hey, _all_ of science is theory. Every single bit of it. None of it's proven true, ever. The best you can do is increase the probability that a hypothesis is true. And when a new, better theory comes along, you can sometimes specify the error range of the old one. With any luck, you may even be able to continue using the old one, so long as your engineering is well within the middle of the range: see Newton's mechanics, which is plenty good enough for the range of magnitudes encountered in ordinary life.

Science isn't concerned with Truth, but with working models of reality. Whether they are True in some absolute sense is a question science doesn't concern itself with. Individual scientists have various beliefs about this, and it's sometimes entertaining or instructive to listen to them -- so long as one realises that they are talking theology , not science.

And despite the protestations of true believers everywhere, Truth doesn't exist. Theologies are even more limited than scientific theories, because every one of them is a rationalisation for someone's beliefs. As for philosophy - er, I'll pass. I once did philosophy as a minor, but gave up when I saw that philosophers are either wannabe theologians, which is bad enough, or wannabe poets, which is worse.

BTW, the belief in Science, ie, that science is about Truth, is a type of religion. What's funny is that many religionists and New Age wafflers also believe in Science. It gets really funny when they try to adduce Scientific support for their theologies. Go figure.

FWIW, I've read reams and reams of theology, the Bible all the way through twice (a merciful god gave me permission to forget most of it). I still read the Bible - and like all Bible readers, I skip the bits that don't suit me. The bits I like include the ones where God disses religion. Religion erects a barrier to faith, replaces hope with superstition, and twists love into ugly shapes such as exclusivity, moral accounting, and fanatic loyalty.

HTH

I think the references was to the free workers, ie ones that were paid wages. I haven't checked lately, though.

salv`e

I was referring to Washington ,Franklin et al.....:) beowulf

Wolf posted:

Are you sure?. I'd say there are plenty of scientific truths. Gravity is a truth; hold a watermelon over your head and release, and it will hit you every time. Mix certain chemicals and you will get the same reaction every time. And even a model railroad layout is a plethora of scientific truths; if designed properly and electricity channelled correctly, no matter how complex, it will work. These are all proven scientific truths.

If the secular scientific establishment believes this, then why were they so adamantly opposed to stickers in science books that really did no more than point out what you have just claimed?

Is that a hypothesis or an absolutely true statement?

Well don't tell a typical atheist evolutionist that unless you want your throat jumped down. I spent 3 years in some very hotly contested online Creation/Evolution debates (among many other related subjects) with dozens of opponents at different times. Between them and their web sources (including the big Talk Origins site) I learned first hand that they (which are representative of the entire establishment) believe that evolution on a macro scale is an absolute "fact" based on scientific "truths". Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, they have redefined those words and as you rightly point out, have turned their stance into a religion by choosing to believe the unprovable on faith alone.

Well, for your sake, let's hope God disikes the same parts of Scripture as you.

And by chance you were grouping Creationists in as wrongly using science to support their beliefs, I completely disagree. Verifying the accuracy of the Bible, though not necessary, is helpful to many, particularly sceptics.

~Brad fd64

Peter=A0Forden posted:

Now I am only further confused: Washington and Franklin were racist?

Are you speaking of the George Washington that on the committee which he chaired in his own Fairfax county (July 18, 1774), passed an act saying:

"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this meeting that during our present difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported into any of the British colonies on this continent; and we take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an entire stop for ever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade."

And who teamed with Thomas Jefferson in a life long effort to end slavery?

And are you speaking of the Benjamin Franklin who along with Benjamin Rush founded the first anti-slavery society in America in 1774?

Never get your history from liberals. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think these 2 men had anything to do with changing the old Pagan holidays to Christmas and Easter.

~Brad fd64

You think liberals have cornered the historical revisionist market?

Paul

I must not be typical then. I don't claim it to be the absolute truth, just the explanation that best fits the facts. If you've got a better explanation, other than magic, let us know.

Brad fd64;

With all due respect aren't you trying to pull a fast one here? A person can be anti-slavery and yet be very racist. You cite Washington's 1774 actions as showing an anti-slavery stance. I agree. A year later, however, upon taking command of the Continental Army, he forbade the enlistment of Blacks. (In honesty, he later recanted.) The point remains, though, that he was quite capable of thinking along racial lines. Even Lincoln thought in similar terms when he planned to encourage emigration to Africa among freed slaves.

Obviously people, even great people, are saddled by the baggage of the age into which they are born.

In passing, I also do not agree with beowulf's original statement. If he is focussing on the noxious three-fifths rule, one should note that it is not based on race but rather on the franchise. Any tax-paying male, black or white, potentially had the same representation rights.

IMHO there's nothing particularly Liberal or Conservative in striving to be accurate. Possible agendas should not get in the way of an honest presentation of facts. Thank you.

Jerry

skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net... Peter Forden posted:

And who teamed with Thomas Jefferson in a life long effort to end slavery?

And are you speaking of the Benjamin Franklin who along with Benjamin Rush founded the first anti-slavery society in America in 1774?

Never get your history from liberals. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think these 2 men had anything to do with changing the old Pagan holidays to Christmas and Easter.

~Brad fd64

Salvè If they owned or supported slavery in any form whatsoever(especially depending upon colour) they are racist, they are both from a practical point of view proven racists Beowulf

Larry Blanchard posted:

You mean like nothing exploding for no reason and forming an entire organized universe, or life appearing from nowhere? Sometimes I wonder which side of this issue requires the most faith (or "magic").

I would love to get into a Creation/Evolution debate but this isn't the place to start such a huge discussion. In a nutshell this is one of my primary reasons that Darwin's theory can't possibly work, and I'll leave it that:

Macro evolution; that being species involving into entirely new species is supposed to work on random, non-intelligently directed genetic mutations. Random means random. The chances of a new feature (interior or exterior) beginning to form in such a way as to eventually be beneficial would not even be 1 in 100. Then the new infant feature would be required to go through further random mutations, ALL in the proper direction, in order to become the eventual fully functional feature. An example would be reptile scales turning into bird feathers. This would take hundreds of generations over at least hundreds of years (and that is being conservatively fair to Darwin -yet you could cut the time in half, and half again and my point would still be made). So far we're asking, by the odds, to roll a hundred sided dice 100 times and come up with the same number every time just to come up with one single positive functional mutation series, and already our chances are about zero.

Sub-problem 1; to worsen this scenario; the negative mutations forming in the same community of a particular species would so outnumber a lone positive mutation that the positive mutation would almost instantly be bred out of the species in one generation. Evolution would simply be spinning it's wheels and going nowhere.

Sub-problem 2; New features don't work independently from the body. Scales and feathers for example have entirely different compositions and purposes. In the case of fowl, the bone structure also had to change by becoming lightweight yet strong in order for flight to eventually occur not to mention forearms with feet and claws had to change to simple wing configurations. Beaks had to evolve in order to groom the feathers, etc. Now we have to roll dozens more 100 sided dice, all coming up with the same number to correlate with the first roll in order for everything in the life form to biologically harmonize and be functional.

Sub-problem 3; a new feature is not a simple feature. If you look at the breakdown of the elements that make up a single feather for example. The complexity of it. It becomes clear that the same problems of part 2 come into play within the new feature itself. To work, they have form in such a way to do all they need to do; such as the ability to repel water by their microscopic engineering or develop oils, the ability to molt and replace themselves at the proper time, to be in the correct number, length and overlap to allow for flight and for protection/insulation of the body.

As you can see, the more you break the theory down, the more illogical, absurd and impossible it becomes. At least to me anyway. I've heard very small arguments to the above but none solve the monumental layered problems that Darwin's theory creates.

I can cap-off my view (which by the way is not mine alone but rather a different way of putting what any major Creation Science organization points out) by saying that a final problem rises out of all this by noting the simple fact that random negative mutations would outnumber positives by so much that all life today should contain a collection of infant, limbo, or waning features otherwise described as "vestigial" (commonly "vestigial organs"). Evolutionists do have a small list of these but that list has shortened significantly as most once thought useless have turned up to have a purpose. The handful that is left (which probably also have explanations yet undiscovered) is irrelevant because there should not be a small list to represent all life but rather such a list PER life form. Even Darwin himself admitted confusion as to why he couldn't find this evidence during his years of research.

In short, what we should see today is all life or at least a large percentage in a constant state of flux, evolving into something new. Instead all we see are completed (or "finished") forms in harmony with themselves and their environment. Micro evolution/adaptation (changes within species) is all that has ever been recorded not only in the present but in the fossil record as well. The term "missing link" often refers to monkey to human missing fossils but in fact the problem exists across the entire fossil spectrum.

That was one big nutshell but it's something I've studied a little about, a hot button if you will and I can only hope some may have found it interesting. As I said I won't go into a debate on it and want to get back on topic.

For any further interest on the subject I recommend the following Creation Science sites. If there is a specific topic you're interested in you can use their search engines to bring up articles.

~Brad fd64

They must be invisible turtles cause they don't show up in NASA photos. :)

Jerry Posted:

In all sincerity, no; I'm not trying to pull a fast one. In all that I have read about the majority of the Founders who were against slavery, I've really got no impression of racial undertones, but considering the extent of their desires to end the practice it's difficult to believe their only real interest was to eliminate the practice itself with no particular concern about the people enslaved. In fact, in the article links included below there is explained how the idea, 'all men are created equal', was both a growing belief not only as a reason to end slavery but applied toward the cause of the American Revolution (the colonists themselves felt to be treated as slaves under British rule). You bring up 2 examples of the possibility but I'd need to study the background of the intent of those decisions. There may have been logical reasons.

That is the truest point to remember in the entire issue. The Founders being born into a society where slavery was part of life (Washington inherited his first slaves at age 11), it is a credit to them that they chose to take the unpopular position on the matter. Even if there were a degree of thinking along racial lines among them, considering the circumstances of the age, it would be questionable to put them at blame, and certainly unfair to label them racists. I think a good example would be Scout in the classic To Kill a Mockingbird. She often used the "n" word because it was a common term in the community and the era she was growing up in (at least until her father decided it was time to explain why it was improper), but did anyone who read the novel think she was racist? Of course not. We knew she held no evil thoughts against anyone because of their skin color. Though the character was fictional, I believe the same understanding the story was getting across can be applied to the circumstances of the colonial era.

In my experience and observation, yes, bias exists on both sides, but it seems much more prevalent with liberals. I try to choose my sources carefully and on American History from a Christian persective, a place called Wallbuilders has always proven reliable to me. These 2 articles give some enlightening info on the subject of the Founders and slavery (Mostly Washington, Jefferson and Franklin). Very long and detailed but worth the read to set the historcal record straight.

There was also some extra posts added to the thread since last I looked. I would only add that it's true that slavery wasn't confined to blacks by whites. It's well known that there were many blacks who actually profited in Africa by assisting capture of other blacks to sell for slaves and recently I learned that about 10% of blacks in early America also owned black slaves. Then there is the fact that the British government didn't want the slave trade to end in America (Washington butted heads with them over that) and that even before Europeans arrived in America the native Americans commonly enslaved each other, typically after small wars between tribes. I wonder if the schools taught any of this during black history month?

~Brad fd64

First of all, evolution has nothing to say about the creation of the universe

- that's astrophysics. Claiming that evolution asserts a non-created universe is a red herring.

Secondly, as for the physics of it, I don't see why it's logical to assume a god or gods appeared out of nothing and then created a universe out of that nothing if it's not logical to assume a universe appearing out of nothing.

Third, those who say evolution couldn't work don't realize just how long 4 billion years is. Look up the Burgess Shale sometime for kicks :-).

Fourth, you're right that the subject is not for this newsgroup so I'll stop now.

Yeah. Whereas the idea that everything was created by your invisible friend in seven days isn't illogical or absurd.

Yeah, but when yer God and all, those 4 billion years could, in our so-called human terms, be mere seconds. Nothin's incompatible, it's just a matter of scale, eh.

Tejas Pedro

Oh Lord, if you can't take care of us, Won't you please, please let us be? - Randy Newman

All of you are sinners. Blaming God for your weaknesses. Evolution is a myth we all know that. There is no missing link but some of the RMR trainboard gang makes me question that.

Pray alot and f> > > >

Check out patent number 4,666,425.

Go to

The title is "Device for perfusing an animal head".