PDA

View Full Version : Liberal racism in Berkeley?: Cut h.s. science labs for “diversity’s” sake!


andymays
01-11-2010, 04:11 PM
Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs
The proposal would trade labs seen as benefiting white students for resources to help struggling students.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/berkeley-high-may-cut-out-science-labs/Content?oid=1536705

Excerpt:

The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High's School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average while black and Latino students are doing worse.

Paul Gibson, an alternate parent representative on the School Governance Council, said that information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students. He said the decision to consider cutting the labs in order to redirect resources to underperforming students was virtually unanimous.

Tom
01-11-2010, 10:00 PM
And yet another excuse for failure.:sleeping:
I am in favor of diversity, though.

boxcar
01-11-2010, 10:55 PM
This story vindicates what I have been saying for a long time about socialism, Affirmative Action, etc. When libs/statists/socialists talk about "leveling the playing field", they're really talking about bringing the achievers, the producers and such DOWN to the level of the underachievers, unproductive, educationally-challenged types. Socialism will never, never take this latter group and and try to RAISE them to HIGHER levels; for such policies and actions would actually be self-defeating to socialist ideology. In this story, the two-prong goal of the policy is to keep the underachievers down (and ultimately make them dependent upon the state) and to bring down their white counterparts who, hopefully, will become as dumbed down as their underachieving counterparts and, therefore, become dependent upon the state, too.

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
01-11-2010, 11:54 PM
Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute

mostpost
01-12-2010, 12:29 AM
Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute
Don't think for a minute that I agree with Boxcar et al, but what this plan seems to say is, we are going to work to bring our linebackers up to par. And by the way, we're taking the helmets and shoulder pads away from our DB's And DL.
Time to go aggravate Boxcar. :D :D

boxcar
01-12-2010, 12:30 AM
Dear Mr. Vindicated,

Let's say you run a football team. Your linebackers suck but your defensive line and DB's are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

are tremendous. What are you gonna spend most of your money on in next year's draft?

Knute


As usual, a very poor attempt at an analogy. In the game scenario, the talented defensive line isn't going to suffer because no money is being spent on them. In fact, they will be helped if the team can buy some talented players because the team's chances for success will be increased. But in the school scenario, the classes that the whites excel in and obviously like are being cut, and money will, instead, be spent on the "underprivileged, the educationally-challenged at the expense of their smarter, white counterparts. It's clear from the article, the school is not at all really concerned about any negative impacts the redirected funds will have on the smarter, white people; they're entirely concerned with the people of color, which in itself is discriminatory. The school is going to give preferences to the "minorities", which will come at the expense of the whites. Social engineering at its worst, especially since it's been proven time and again that throwing money at a poor education system that is loaded with undisciplined kids to begin with never works! The money would have been better spent staying right where it was so that those kids with some real, proven potential would have a chance of doing something with their lives.

Moreover, bright eyes, when did learning in school become essentially a team effort? Learning and studying is primarily an individual effort where individual grades and diplomas are earned. My schoolmates never contributed very much to my overally education. My parents, my teachers and yours truly, however, were basically the "team". :bang: :bang:

Anymore bright analogies, Mr. Grad, from Dumb Down U? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

bigmack
01-12-2010, 12:43 AM
Schools throughout the state of Golden are disparaged by those kids that aspire to lofty goals of being gangsters, cocktail waitresses or drug addicts.

It's been a shame what has happened to the ratings of CA schools as a result of these malcontents. If they don't want to learn, punch 'em out and make room for those that do.

Berkeley should spend more time encouraging women to grow underarm hair, burning their bra's and wearing Berkenstock sandals and stay out of the classroom.

NJ Stinks
01-12-2010, 12:58 AM
As usual, a very poor attempt at an analogy.

I agree. It was a lousy analogy. I guess I just couldn't let your feeling vindicated go by the boards! :p

But I will say this. The article did not say science classes were being eliminated - just science labs. Not sure I agree these labs are the equivalent of helmets and shoulder pads, Mostpost. :D Of course, it's possible that I just did not appreciate my time in science labs in high school. :confused:

mostpost
01-12-2010, 01:03 AM
This story vindicates what I have been saying for a long time about socialism, Affirmative Action, etc. When libs/statists/socialists talk about "leveling the playing field", they're really talking about bringing the achievers, the producers and such DOWN to the level of the underachievers, unproductive, educationally-challenged types. Socialism will never, never take this latter group and and try to RAISE them to HIGHER levels; for such policies and actions would actually be self-defeating to socialist ideology. In this story, the two-prong goal of the policy is to keep the underachievers down (and ultimately make them dependent upon the state) and to bring down their white counterparts who, hopefully, will become as dumbed down as their underachieving counterparts and, therefore, become dependent upon the state, too.

Boxcar
It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society. So every time a school district asks for money to fund a needed program, a hue and cry is raised, the funding is denied, the program is cut and the students are left out. Yet there is always enough money for another bomb, another bullet, or another missile.
I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Socialism. It says Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the group. This could be the state. This could be the workers themselves. Wikipedia says that the purpose of this, according to Socialist theory, is to give everyone the OPPORTUNITY to benefit from this control, rather than just a few. (emphasis mine)
I am a liberal. I am not a socialist. I have no idea what a statist is except a word that conservatives made up. I believe in a mixed economy with a capitalist base for products and services provided to and for individuals,*
and socialist (or public) control of areas that effect the commons. (roads, electricity, public safety, education, access to health care to name some)
I do not think that helping some improve their life means that someone else's life must be diminished. In fact I think everyone benefits when more people are elevated.
You think the world is a zero sum game and you lose any time anyone else wins.

*Things such as cars, furniture, food, clothes, drinks, entertainment, insurance (with oversight), and many others should be provided by private enterprise.

mostpost
01-12-2010, 01:12 AM
I agree. It was a lousy analogy. I guess I just couldn't let your feeling vindicated go by the boards! :p

But I will say this. The article did not say science classes were being eliminated - just science labs. Not sure I agree these labs are the equivalent of helmets and shoulder pads, Mostpost. :D Of course, it's possible that I just did not appreciate my time in science labs in high school. :confused:
Comparing science labs to helmets and shoulder pads wasn't the best idea I ever had. What I was trying to convey was that taking something away from one group, something which is a part of its success, is not the way to help another group.
I don't think that Boxcar, Tom and company have any right to criticize the school board's action when they continually oppose any funding for programs which might alleviate the problem. I suspect they are opposed to public education on principle.

LottaKash
01-12-2010, 01:13 AM
Another step forward, in the "Dumbing-Down of America".....:eek:

best,

johnhannibalsmith
01-12-2010, 01:19 AM
It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society...

I think its a bit of a stretch to equate an outcry about siphoning funds from one program to another under questionable pretenses to the presumption that all conservatives don't feel obligated to support the community.

In fact, I think it is plain ignorant to make an assertion such as that third sentence.

mostpost
01-12-2010, 01:44 AM
I think its a bit of a stretch to equate an outcry about siphoning funds from one program to another under questionable pretenses to the presumption that all conservatives don't feel obligated to support the community.

In fact, I think it is plain ignorant to make an assertion such as that third sentence.
Sorry, but that is the impression I get from numerous posts about everyone looking out for themselves; and comments about how "I got mine, too bad about everybody else" How many times have I read here about how we should get rid of Social Security and Medicare is socialized medicine.

bigmack
01-12-2010, 01:53 AM
This is where Mosty really gets jazzed. He gets the opportunity to figure out in his own little world how he would dictate to other people their conduct & the channeling of funding.

Success doesn't rise to the surface, you ask for anyone with any level of success to bite the bullet and suffer for those who have little in the way of effort towards the cause at hand.

'All for one' and all get brought down by the lowest common denominators. No point in some succeeding if others have little reason to even try. Overall, they each become less than mediocre. But we treated them all the same. :bang:

Tom
01-12-2010, 08:45 AM
The proper analogy would be if your defense sucked and your offense was good, to tell the offense to score 30 more points a game, to compensate for the porous defense. and perhaps make some of the good players play double duty at the same pay, to help out the poor defenders. Eventually, your good players will leave and you will left with.....the Buffalo Bills. :rolleyes:

Pell Mell
01-12-2010, 11:09 AM
[QUOTE=mostpost]It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society. So every time a school district asks for money to fund a needed program, a hue and cry is raised, the funding is denied, the program is cut and the students are left out. Yet there is always enough money for another bomb, another bullet, or another missile.
QUOTE]

I thought you of all people would know that spending more and more money is not the answer.
I watched a program just recently about schools and one of the main points was that DC spends more per pupil,($14,000 per year) than any district in the country and they have the worst scores in the country. So lets throw some more bucks at them. :bang:

jballscalls
01-12-2010, 11:27 AM
science labs were awful, boring, and taught nothing but mixing crap in beakers. What did disecting that frog teach me?? Good Riddance!!

boxcar
01-12-2010, 11:34 AM
It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society.

Nope, your're wrong again. It has a lot more to do with whiners, criers, cowards and "victims" who want other people to pay their share. We conservatives dont' have any problem whatsoever paying our fair share; but we do object to picking up other people's tabs. Why should I pay for someone else to have a free lunch -- for which I must pay? How is it that we working "conservatives" have some kind of moral obligation to pay for the deadbeats in society? How come the deadbeats aren't FORCED --- aren't COERCED -- aren't threatened with IMPRISONMENT by the U.S. government for not fulfilling THEIR MORAL OBLIGATION to society by working and paying their own share? I'd like to understand this. Get back to me on this, will ya?

Moreover, when the poor do work and earn their way, why should they not be CONTENT with what they earn? Why do they look to bigger wage earners to pick up their slack? Why do the low wage earners think they're entitled to live like their higher wage counterparts? Nowhere in any of this country's founding documents does it say that any man is guaranteed to live like a king -- to be wealthy -- to have all the desires of his heart. Get back back to me on this, too, okay?

Boxcar

boxcar
01-12-2010, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE=mostpost]It has nothing to do with being socialists, or libs, or statists. It has to do with being knuckleheads. And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society. So every time a school district asks for money to fund a needed program, a hue and cry is raised, the funding is denied, the program is cut and the students are left out. Yet there is always enough money for another bomb, another bullet, or another missile.
QUOTE]

I thought you of all people would know that spending more and more money is not the answer.
I watched a program just recently about schools and one of the main points was that DC spends more per pupil,($14,000 per year) than any district in the country and they have the worst scores in the country. So lets throw some more bucks at them. :bang:

Socialists think money is the answer to everything. I suppose they think money will buy virtue and morality, too.

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith
01-12-2010, 11:50 AM
Sorry, but that is the impression I get from numerous posts about everyone looking out for themselves; and comments about how "I got mine, too bad about everybody else" How many times have I read here about how we should get rid of Social Security and Medicare is socialized medicine.

Yeah, yeah - I understand the whats and the whys and there is plenty of liberal pidgeonholing to go around... but I think it would be a little more accurate to consider that at least some conservative leaning types (ahem) don't mind contributing to a better society whatsoever, but rather find great fault with the corrupt, unjust, thieving mechanism employed for dictating the terms of such social betterment - that being centralized government in its current bombastic form.

The system has been exploited to the degree that it doesn't fulfill those tenets of societal improvement and empowering and supporting it in its current form and apparent direction is the concern for many, not the goals of the idealists that have their noble intentions bastardized by the intervention of contemporary politics.

boxcar
01-12-2010, 11:59 AM
Yeah, yeah - I understand the whats and the whys and there is plenty of liberal pidgeonholing to go around... but I think it would be a little more accurate to consider that at least some conservative leaning types (ahem) don't mind contributing to a better society whatsoever, but rather find great fault with the corrupt, unjust, thieving mechanism employed for dictating the terms of such social betterment - that being centralized government in its current bombastic form.

The system has been exploited to the degree that it doesn't fulfill those tenets of societal improvement and empowering and supporting it in its current form and apparent direction is the concern for many, not the goals of the idealists that have their noble intentions bastardized by the intervention of contemporary politics.

And those intentions will always be derailed by crooked, unethical, corrupt politicians whose only goal is to perpetuate and consolidate their own power. This is the crux of the problem. The system or "mechanism" is what it is by design because keeping a large segment of the population dependent upon the government is what these politicians count on to get re-elected, and re-elected and re-elected...

Boxcar

hcap
01-12-2010, 12:21 PM
This story vindicates what I have been saying for a long time about socialism, Affirmative Action, etc. When libs/statists/socialists talk about "leveling the playing field", they're really talking about bringing the achievers, the producers and such DOWN to the level of the underachievers, unproductive, educationally-challenged types. Socialism will never, never take this latter group and and try to RAISE them to HIGHER levels; for such policies and actions would actually be self-defeating to socialist ideology. In this story, the two-prong goal of the policy is to keep the underachievers down (and ultimately make them dependent upon the state) and to bring down their white counterparts who, hopefully, will become as dumbed down as their underachieving counterparts and, therefore, become dependent upon the state, too.

BoxcarSo now you are bitching about science labs being shut? Since you refuse to consider science a valid means of understanding the world and universe, what gives in your convoluted brain? I thought scientists themselves are according to you biased by materialism and ant-God sentiments? Maybe you should be overjoyed that our impressionable youth won't be twisted into community organizing evil statists

Btw, you never responded to my "basic science" question on the RNC Survey thread.
As you would say in high Boxarian;

'Methinks" you are chicken.

boxcar
01-12-2010, 12:41 PM
So now you are bitching about science labs being shut? Since you refuse to consider science a valid means of understanding the world and universe, what gives in your convoluted brain? I thought scientists themselves are according to you biased by materialism and ant-God sentiments? Maybe you should be overjoyed that our impressionable youth won't be twisted into community organizing evil statists

Btw, you never responded to my "basic science" question on the RNC Survey thread.
As you would say in high Boxarian;

'Methinks" you are chicken.

Am "Methinks" you're riding on a dead horse, as usual.

And, btw, I have nothing against science per se. But remember: Science is only as valid as its assumptions upon which theories are built. There's nothing inherently evil with science per se -- only with those scientists who bring their godless presuppositions to bear upon their disciplines.

Boxcar

hcap
01-12-2010, 01:14 PM
Like their godless presuppositions about radioactive isotope dating, nuclear fission, plate tectonics, and geological studies, all of which seem to be contrary to your supposition that God created the universe with only the "appearance of age?

OK, what sciences are valid? What fields are not based on godless presuppositions?

boxcar
01-12-2010, 01:39 PM
Like their godless presuppositions about radioactive isotope dating, nuclear fission, plate tectonics, and geological studies, all of which seem to be contrary to your supposition that God created the universe with only the "appearance of age?

OK, what sciences are valid? What fields are not based on godless presuppositions?

Their godless presuppositions lead them to wrong conclusions. As stated previously, the earth at once can be old and new, without there being any contradiction. The tension between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation is merely a paradox -- something that is seemingly contradictory.

Boxcar

JustRalph
01-12-2010, 01:40 PM
science labs were awful, boring, and taught nothing but mixing crap in beakers. What did disecting that frog teach me?? Good Riddance!!


if you wanted to be a Doctor or a Scientist it would have meant more to you. Even a pharmacist .........

Which btw takes almost as much schooling now as becoming an M.D.

hcap
01-12-2010, 01:46 PM
Their godless presuppositions lead them to wrong conclusions. As stated previously, the earth at once can be old and new, without there being any contradiction. The tension between Special Revelation and Natural Revelation is merely a paradox -- something that is seemingly contradictory.

BoxcarSo if the earth can be old and new at the same time, there is no contradiction at all between what most scientists believe and what most creationists believe? Sounds like quantum theory.

boxcar
01-12-2010, 02:25 PM
So if the earth can be old and new at the same time, there is no contradiction at all between what most scientists believe and what most creationists believe? Sounds like quantum theory.

Essentially, yes! You see, scientists because they leave God out of all their complex mathematical equations cannot see things clearly and, therefore, draw the wrong conclusions. Conservative theologians, as you well know, have estimated WHEN God created, according to studies of genealogies. But when he created and HOW he did it are entirely two different things, which is why there is no contradiction between the bible and natural revelation. When and How are two different senses within the Law of Non-Contradiction, are they not? But most scientists don't see things that way only because they don't believe in special revelation, so the WHEN to their minds is the age that the universe appears to be to their one-dimensional, naturalistic world view. This is why conservative theologians use the phrase "appearance of age". What they're really saying is that the earth isn't nearly as old as it appears to be -- as all the evidence seems to indicate.

For example, when God created Adam, we have every reason to believe from scripture that he created him as a mature, fully developed man -- let's say for the sake of this discussion -- 30 years old at the TIME of his creation. And he still looked 30 years old 5 minutes AFTER God created him, and 10 minutes later, etc., etc. I have to think that if any doctor or scientist had been around to put Adam under the 'scope and run tests on him, etc., they could only reach one conclusion -- that he was a mature, fully developed man of about 30 years of age. But that wouldn't NECESSARILY mean that he had been hanging out in the Garden for the first 30 years of life brought up by a pack of wolves or a family of apes. ;)

Boxcar

hcap
01-12-2010, 06:30 PM
Essentially, yes! You see, scientists because they leave God out of all their complex mathematical equations cannot see things clearly and, therefore, draw the wrong conclusions. Conservative theologians, as you well know, have estimated WHEN God created, according to studies of genealogies. But when he created and HOW he did it are entirely two different things, which is why there is no contradiction between the bible and natural revelation. When and How are two different senses within the Law of Non-Contradiction, are they not? But most scientists don't see things that way only because they don't believe in special revelation, so the WHEN to their minds is the age that the universe appears to be to their one-dimensional, naturalistic world view. This is why conservative theologians use the phrase "appearance of age". What they're really saying is that the earth isn't nearly as old as it appears to be -- as all the evidence seems to indicate.

For example, when God created Adam, we have every reason to believe from scripture that he created him as a mature, fully developed man -- let's say for the sake of this discussion -- 30 years old at the TIME of his creation. And he still looked 30 years old 5 minutes AFTER God created him, and 10 minutes later, etc., etc. I have to think that if any doctor or scientist had been around to put Adam under the 'scope and run tests on him, etc., they could only reach one conclusion -- that he was a mature, fully developed man of about 30 years of age. But that wouldn't NECESSARILY mean that he had been hanging out in the Garden for the first 30 years of life brought up by a pack of wolves or a family of apes. ;)

BoxcarYour suggestion has possibilities. I mentioned a number of times the ability to hold contradictory concepts in mind at the same time may be quite useful. But the apparent contradiction in quantum mechanics, although not resolved in terms of Newtonian physics, has proved practical. In quantum mechanics our ability to understand subatomic events are limited partly because our instruments and perceptions are too crude and the subatomic scale is in itself indeterminate. Yet a statistical analysis is possible. In other words although we cannot predict individual particles clearly in terms of their position or momentum (one or the other, but not both simultaneously), we can understand them as an aggregate. The sub atomic realm is unknown in many ways, but the same underlying mathematical and philosophical concepts that are only estimates for individual particles are quite successful in determining how groups of particles should act. It is the underlying philosophical and mathematical framework of many fields of physics, including condensed matter physics, solid-state physics, atomic physics, molecular physics, computational chemistry, quantum chemistry, particle physics, and nuclear physics. And it is why we can type away on our computers

So how doe we use the dualistic old/new age of the universe concept that you are suggesting to answer practical questions?? How does one determine actual past events? How can we answer the original question? Did dinosaurs and man coexist at the same time?
Or is it indeterminate as my example of a sub atomic particle?

jballscalls
01-12-2010, 11:47 PM
if you wanted to be a Doctor or a Scientist it would have meant more to you. Even a pharmacist .........

Which btw takes almost as much schooling now as becoming an M.D.

i know Ralph, i was mostly kidding around, but those were awful. I think most of the learning one does is in college anyways. high school is more about friends and sports and socializing.

there is a great episode of the show Curb your enthusiasm where the main character has a huge debate on what medication recommendation to go with, the dr. or the pharmacist!

boxcar
01-13-2010, 12:51 AM
Your suggestion has possibilities. I mentioned a number of times the ability to hold contradictory concepts in mind at the same time may be quite useful. But the apparent contradiction in quantum mechanics, although not resolved in terms of Newtonian physics, has proved practical. In quantum mechanics our ability to understand subatomic events are limited partly because our instruments and perceptions are too crude and the subatomic scale is in itself indeterminate. Yet a statistical analysis is possible. In other words although we cannot predict individual particles clearly in terms of their position or momentum (one or the other, but not both simultaneously), we can understand them as an aggregate. The sub atomic realm is unknown in many ways, but the same underlying mathematical and philosophical concepts that are only estimates for individual particles are quite successful in determining how groups of particles should act. It is the underlying philosophical and mathematical framework of many fields of physics, including condensed matter physics, solid-state physics, atomic physics, molecular physics, computational chemistry, quantum chemistry, particle physics, and nuclear physics. And it is why we can type away on our computers

So how doe we use the dualistic old/new age of the universe concept that you are suggesting to answer practical questions?? How does one determine actual past events? How can we answer the original question? Did dinosaurs and man coexist at the same time?
Or is it indeterminate as my example of a sub atomic particle?

First off, we have to be careful in choosing our terms. The above mentioned "dualistic" concepts are paradoxical, not contradictory. They seem to be contradictory, but that's as far as we can really should go.

Regarding those pesky dinos, scientists, with their world view of Naturalism, will, of course deny the possibility because it doesn't fit into their origins' time line -- not even close, right? But tell me who these two critters are in the Book of Job:

Job 40:15-41:1

15 "Behold now, Behemoth , which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins,
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 "He bends his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 "His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron.

19 "He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his maker bring near his sword.
20 "Surely the mountains bring him food,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 "Under the lotus plants he lies down,
In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
22 "The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him.
23 "If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
24 "Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?
NASB

Or this one:

Job 42:1-34

"Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook?Or press down his tongue with a cord? 2 "Can you put a rope in his nose?Or pierce his jaw with a hook? 3 "Will he make many supplications to you?Or will he speak to you soft words? 4 "Will he make a covenant with you?Will you take him for a servant forever? 5 "Will you play with him as with a bird?Or will you bind him for your maidens? 6 "Will the traders bargain over him?Will they divide him among the merchants? 7 "Can you fill his skin with harpoons,Or his head with fishing spears? 8 "Lay your hand on him;Remember the battle; you will not do it again! 9 "Behold, your expectation is false;Will you be laid low even at the sight of him? 10 "No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him;Who then is he that can stand before Me? 11 "Who has given to Me that I should repay him?Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.
12 "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs,Or his mighty strength, or his orderly frame. 13 "Who can strip off his outer armor?Who can come within his double mail? 14 "Who can open the doors of his face?Around his teeth there is terror. 15 "His strong scales are his pride,Shut up as with a tight seal. 16 "One is so near to another,That no air can come between them. 17 "They are joined one to another;They clasp each other and cannot be separated. 18 "His sneezes flash forth light,And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 "Out of his mouth go burning torches;Sparks of fire leap forth. 20 "Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth,As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21 "His breath kindles coals,And a flame goes forth from his mouth. 22 "In his neck lodges strength,And dismay leaps before him. 23 "The folds of his flesh are joined together,Firm on him and immovable. 24 "His heart is as hard as a stone;Even as hard as a lower millstone. 25 "When he raises himself up, the mighty fear;Because of the crashing they are bewildered. 26 "The sword that reaches him cannot avail;Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. 27 "He regards iron as straw,Bronze as rotten wood. 28 "The arrow cannot make him flee;Slingstones are turned into stubble for him. 29 "Clubs are regarded as stubble;He laughs at the rattling of the javelin. 30 "His underparts are like sharp potsherds;He spreads out like a threshing sledge on the mire. 31 "He makes the depths boil like a pot;He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. 32 "Behind him he makes a wake to shine;One would think the deep to be gray-haired. 33 "Nothing on earth is like him, One made without fear. 34 "He looks on everything that is high;He is king over all the sons of pride."
NASB

Do either of these little beasties sound like anything that is hanging out on the planet today?

Why or how did they become extinct? I think the postdiluvian environment could have been too hostile for them for some reason. We know one thing for certain about this period, according to the bible: Man's lifespan was significantly shortened -- drastically shortened. Too much carbon dioxide? Ozone layer depletion? Too much air pollution? :rolleyes: But seriously, I wasnt' there, so I don't know. Nor do I really give two flips. None of these things are fundamental tenets of the Faith. I'm just tossing these things out since you seem to have this new obsession with the Dinos. ;)

Boxcar

Tom
01-13-2010, 07:45 AM
"His underparts are like sharp potsherds;He spreads out like a threshing sledge on the mire. 31 "He makes the depths boil like a pot;He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. 32 "Behind him he makes a wake to shine;One would think the deep to be gray-haired. 33 "Nothing on earth is like him, One made without fear. 34 "He looks on everything that is high;He is king over all the sons of pride."
NASB

Do either of these little beasties sound like anything that is hanging out on the planet today?

One of them sounds familiar! :eek:

hcap
01-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Box,

I was trying to get a response that was science based. I mentioned in one of my previous posts that your interpretations of the bible are very different than mine. Could you please describe to me from a young universe perspective (forget for the moment we are arguing), an evidence based argument? Not belief based. You did say you find fault with biased scientists, not science itself. So use science and evidence. I am sure there are many theologians that have tackled this from your perspective. What are the arguments?
You have mentioned misinterpretation of scientific data as a problem. Sow me where that is the case. Or at least throw some doubt on the old universe theory.

Philosophically if both young and old can both be correct, how can you support your case with evidence? Other than quotes from the bible? I can support my case. Maybe there is a way of resolving the apparent conflict, other than assuming one side is biased.

boxcar
01-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Box,

I was trying to get a response that was science based. I mentioned in one of my previous posts that your interpretations of the bible are very different than mine. Could you please describe to me from a young universe perspective (forget for the moment we are arguing), an evidence based argument? Not belief based. You did say you find fault with biased scientists, not science itself. So use science and evidence. I am sure there are many theologians that have tackled this from your perspective. What are the arguments?
You have mentioned misinterpretation of scientific data as a problem. Sow me where that is the case. Or at least throw some doubt on the old universe theory.

Philosophically if both young and old can both be correct, how can you support your case with evidence? Other than quotes from the bible? I can support my case. Maybe there is a way of resolving the apparent conflict, other than assuming one side is biased.

The evidence in the bible, that's how? How else could I support it?

Plus I'm not engaging in a debate here. All I simply threw out to you is this very simple but profound premise which would reconcile two very different conclusions about the actual age of the earth. All I have said is that indeed the entire universe could simultaneously be young and old without any contradiction based on the Creationism Model since we can deduce from various parts of the bible that God created everything in a mature, developed state -- giving everything the appearance of age. When God created Adam, 5 minutes after his creation, could it be said that Adam was really 30 years old? Yes, it could in one sense but if we looked at the length of actual time he has existed in Garden, then in another sense we'd have to say he was only 5 minutes old at that point in time based on the time of his actual creation. Based on the "when", not the "how".

Remember: You were the one who initially raised the objection that if God did create with the "appearance of age" he'd be deceiving mankind. You accused him of being a trickster, etc. The only reason I have continued this discussion with you is to prove that my theory would not be inconsistent with what science apparently believes about the age of the universe based on various tests. Where Naturalism goes astray, however, is that they then conclude from all those findings that they represent the "when" of the origins; whereas I maintain it represents the "how" of it. Therefore, since there would be no contradiction between scientific findings in Natural Revelation and the teachings of Special Revelation, it cannot logically be said that God is deceiving anyone. Man has chosen to deliberately leave God and his Special Revelation out of all his scientific equations, which means he must inevitably reach the wrong conclusions.

I have no time, 'cap, to enter into a full blow debate with you. I really don't. I'm up to my eyeballs in a project that needs to get done ASAP. All I have done is toss out a viable solution to this tension between scientific conclusions and God's written revelation.

Boxcar

hcap
01-13-2010, 02:08 PM
I brought up that God as trickster to confront you to somehow explain how the "appearance of age" theory you offered could be justified. You developed this into a philosophical concept I had not heard from you or in fact from any theologian. I found it plausible philosophically.

I mentioned a seemingly similar contradictory example of certain aspects of quantum theory. As an example of how 2 apparently contradictory world views were reconciled. EVIDENCE from observed phenomena led to this reconciliation, at least mathematically (This original problem led Einstein to remark "God does not play dice with the universe".)

I was hoping you could use evidence to do a similar reconciliation here. After all you have stated it is not science that is the problem, but the scientists. So instead of biblical passages and references, try evidence, the foundation of the scientific method. You claim to support. Like supporting science labs that are to be replaced.

boxcar
01-13-2010, 02:29 PM
I brought up that God as trickster to confront you to somehow explain how the "appearance of age" theory you offered could be justified. You developed this into a philosophical concept I had not heard from you or in fact from any theologian. I found it plausible philosophically.

Then you need to get up to speed. The "appearance of age" theory isn't mine. It's not a Boxcar original, unfortunately. :( It's been around for awhile.

Now, as far as evidence from "observed phenomena" goes, I'm sure there are scientists out there on the web who subscribe to Creationism who might be of help to you. I'm not going to spend my valuable time doing your homework. As stated previously, it's not a huge deal to me. As long as there is a plausible philosophical explanation to reconcile these two "apparently contradictory world views", i.e. Creationism and Naturalism, that's good enough for me. And the only reason I subscribe to this Apparent Age Theory is because the bible seems to support it, and not because some clever bible scholar thought it up.

Furthermore, I don't see how using Natural Revelation ("observed phenomena') alone is going to help you. For example, going back to Adam again...if God created him fully matured and developed, how would any scientist or doctor, through any examination of him determine that he's not really 30 years of age, for example? It seems to me that in order for that to be discovered, God would have had to screw up somewhere along the line. He would have had to overlook something, left some evidence to the contrary behind. And if that would be the case, then God isn't who he claims to be in the bible, e.g. infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. I mean he either created Adam as a mature, developed human being with some age on his bones or he didn't. :rolleyes:

Good luck in your ongoing search for truth... ;)

Boxcar

hcap
01-13-2010, 06:39 PM
So you are not going to my homework Mr.Teach?

Well, we are back to you ducking an honest debate. If you truly thought science a valid means of understand at least certain aspects of the universe, and believed observable phenomena could lead to certain truths, you would you use rational evidentiary arguments to defend your position. If there is anything to your young/old universe theory, some iota of evidence should roll easily out of your brain.

I thought you could support your philosophical point of view with something other than biblical passages and references. You have suggested that both the old(scientific) and young(creationist) views are not contradictory. I followed up on this because I believe something along these lines. In certain ways I see very little contradiction between evolution and God.

If you actually believe both old and new, you should be conversant in the old as well as the new. Both ways. On the other hand, if I did not know you better, it might appear that you are using this-some would say bogus outlandish manufactured philosophical argument-to simply undermine any evidence obtained through testable repeatable scientific discovery. After all it is quite a convenient way to invalidate ANY OBSERVABLE evidence. God can make anything appear anyway to prove any thesis.

There is an old saying, " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".( Carl Sagan) Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Come into the realm of science.

I think the "how' and "when" of things should not be artificially divided. Both should be part of a comprehensive world view

boxcar
01-13-2010, 11:26 PM
So you are not going to my homework Mr.Teach?

Well, we are back to you ducking an honest debate. If you truly thought science a valid means of understand at least certain aspects of the universe, and believed observable phenomena could lead to certain truths, you would you use rational evidentiary arguments to defend your position. If there is anything to your young/old universe theory, some iota of evidence should roll easily out of your brain.

I thought you could support your philosophical point of view with something other than biblical passages and references. You have suggested that both the old(scientific) and young(creationist) views are not contradictory. I followed up on this because I believe something along these lines. In certain ways I see very little contradiction between evolution and God.

If you actually believe both old and new, you should be conversant in the old as well as the new. Both ways. On the other hand, if I did not know you better, it might appear that you are using this-some would say bogus outlandish manufactured philosophical argument-to simply undermine any evidence obtained through testable repeatable scientific discovery. After all it is quite a convenient way to invalidate ANY OBSERVABLE evidence. God can make anything appear anyway to prove any thesis.

There is an old saying, " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".( Carl Sagan) Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Come into the realm of science.

I think the "how' and "when" of things should not be artificially divided. Both should be part of a comprehensive world view

All I need to be conversant in is that IF the universe is young (as the bible certainly suggests) and IF the science is is even half right about the old age, the two seemingly conflicting ideas are merely paradoxes and are not contradictory. The biblical evidence and natural (scientific) evidence would actually harmonize very nicely if science would consider the former. Science and God dont' have to be at war with one another. But most scientists have declared war on God, so there's no room at the inn for Special Revelation.

We each operate with our own set of presuppositions: Mine are based on the bible which says that nothing is too difficult for God to do. But God is God and I'm just a mere mortal in whom God has not confided in how he does things. If we could understand the "how", then there would be no such things as supernatural or miraculous acts, would there?

The fact that you dont' care much for how easy it is for me to reconcile the old-new universe tension is your problem. My argument would only be bogus or outlandish if you could demonstrate any inconsistencies, which, obviously you cannot. This is precisely why you insist on perverting the creation account and try to make it say things that it isn't. You have to make the creation account fit into the scheme of Naturalism. Naturalism is your presuppositional baggage, so no matter what everything must be made to fit it.

And furthermore, I'm not out to undermine any scientific evidence per se. My beef with science is that it continually draws wrong conclusions about the evidence because godless scientists' assumptions are all wrong. Garbage in, garbage out...and all that good stuff -- all because science insists on leaving God out of all their equations. The only thing that is NECESSARY with most scientists is they avoid God like the plague.

Boxcar

Show Me the Wire
01-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Even Albert Einstein had his biases. Although, Einstein's theory predicted the universe having a beginning, instead of being eternal or static, he could not bring himself to accept his own theory's logical conclusion, because it opposed his belief system of the eternal universe.

hcap
01-15-2010, 06:37 AM
Common guys, there is a difference between one's own biases and biases in science. Carbon and radioactive isotope dating or plate tectonics or their mathematical underpinnings are pretty straightforward. We are not talking some harebrained scheme.

Ok once again which aspects of science are acceptable? Which are not?

Show Me the Wire
01-15-2010, 12:53 PM
The bias in science is based on the bias of the individuals, that comprise the group. Also, there can be a group bias. Einstein's bias which prevented him from accepting the logical predictions of his own theory are an example of both biases.

boxcar
01-15-2010, 01:15 PM
Common guys, there is a difference between one's own biases and biases in science. Carbon and radioactive isotope dating or plate tectonics or their mathematical underpinnings are pretty straightforward. We are not talking some harebrained scheme.

Ok once again which aspects of science are acceptable? Which are not?

You know, 'cap, for a liberal who is all ga-ga over Equal Outcomes, why can't you understand once and for all that everyone has his/her own personal biases? In fact, as pointed on several occasions in the past, everyone comes into this world with an anti-God bias because the Fall of Man impacted everyone on a universal scale. Scientists aren't exempt, as far as I know. So...you really can't get any more of an equal outcome than what resulted from the Fall.

Evolutionary Theory is as anti-God as one can get because Man shakes his fist at God (in a manner of speaking, of course) and says I'm not buying into anything you say; I'm going to concoct my own theories about how everything began, how we got here, etc., etc. Of course, others just deny the existence of God.

Remember what I said earlier about garbage-in, garbage-out? If one starts with garbage, it's inevitable he'll end with garbage, too. Permit me to use one of my well crafted analogies to make a point. :) (This is why you libs envy me so: I can do what you guys can't :lol: :lol: )

How does a percentage of innocent people wind up in prison or even death row? How does that happen? It starts with an event -- a crime. At the beginning, police investigate the crime and especially with complex crimes start to formulate assumptions. Those assumptions become theories and as the theory grows legs, it seems to point in a direction. At the end of the path of that direction stands one man. He becomes the prime suspect even though he has continually declared his innocence. But the lead investigator on the case is bent on "solving" the case because it'll probably mean a promotion for him. And the rookie prosecutor is bent on adding a feather to his war bonnet because that would certainly further his career. Neither one of them are adverse to "massaging" the evidence a bit to make for an "airtight" case. The case goes to court, the accused is tried, convicted and sent to prison. The jury reached the wrong conclusion, as it was intended for them to do form the very beginning due to the above mentioned agendas of the investigator and prosecutor. But as fate would have it, years later new discoveries are made about the case, it's reopened and everyone learns that the man was really innocent after all.

Why did this innocent man spend so many years behind bars? Because someone in the investigation had donned their bias blinders. The investigation at some point because biased. Became slanted. Became badly skewed. One or more of the assumptions upon which the main theory hung was all wrong. Plus the lead investigator and prosecutor were not above forcing round pegs into square holes to make their evidence fit their conclusions -- to fit their presuppositions. No matter what -- their guy was guilty! And he was going to pay. They were going to get a conviction!

This is precisely how it works with Evolutionary Theory. You see, there's a built-in bias at the very beginning of the scientific investigation: The assumption is that God is either Dead, Unnecessary or Non-Existent. This is the garbage in part of it. As scientists collect their evidence, examine it, collate and try to make sense out of it, it's just a foregone conclusion that that evidence is going to be interpreted within a framework of Naturalism because God has already been excluded from all their equations. And it's equally a forgone conclusion that their "scientific" conclusions will amount to nothing more than garbage, also. They must. The deck was stacked at the very beginning, remember? The scientist were out to get their "man" and implicitly had God in their cross hairs from the very beginning. So, in the end, the implied verdict is: God is Dead, Unnecessary or Non-Existent and everyone who believes in Him or his word is guilty of trying to defraud the world with their gospel message. So, not only has God been put on trial (remember the Scopes trial?), but his followers, too, have. And these conclusions, while not specifically stated in any scientific journal in so many words, are nonetheless clearly implied in evolutionary thought.

In both scenarios, 'cap, the outcomes have been rigged. The outcome in each was pretty much a forgone conclusion.

Meanwhile though...you should be celebrating the fact that God must have a liberal streak in him since he, evidently, believes in Equal Outcomes -- even for scientists. ;)

Boxcar

hcap
01-15-2010, 07:14 PM
The bias in science is based on the bias of the individuals, that comprise the group. Also, there can be a group bias. Einstein's bias which prevented him from accepting the logical predictions of his own theory are an example of both biases.So do you subscribe to boxcars' "appearance of age" thesis? Do you think that all the evidence pointing to the universe being measured in billions of years, not thousands is a result of man's biases? Is there any observational data that is you will acept?
Do you think as box does that evolution and God are incompatible?

Show Me the Wire
01-15-2010, 07:34 PM
So do you subscribe to boxcars' "appearance of age" thesis? Do you think that all the evidence pointing to the universe being measured in billions of years, not thousands is a result of man's biases? Is there any observational data that is you will acept?
Do you think as box does that evolution and God are incompatible?

What does Einstein's bias have to do with me subscribing to the "appearance of age" theory and concluding I don't accept any observational data?

I have stated my position on creation before which is consistent with the universe having an origin and is continually expansion. My point is Einstein discovered the universe had a beginning and its characteristics of expansion, but due to his personal bias and the scientific community’s bias to a static, eternal universe he refused to accept the science of his own discovery. He decided to cling to personal belief that he personally proved wrong. Very interesting.

hcap
01-15-2010, 09:18 PM
What is also interesting is your lack of comment on boxcars' "appearance of age" thesis.
I guess even you are not willing to go out on THAT limb. You also have not delved into the actual age question.

Einstein as any individual scientist may be wrong any number of times, but science is designed to avoid biases. Not perfect, but eventually certain issues become settled science. Peer review based on repeatable testable experimental observation tends to remove false assumptions. And as I have repeatably mentioned, it is not a test for the existence or non-existence of God.
It can measure and calculate physical phenomena without using belief systems.

Warren Henry
01-15-2010, 09:40 PM
Since God is God and since we don't know how S(He) does things, why can't we believe that God created the universe and everything in it according to plan, and that the plan was evolutionary. God created man in His own image doesn't necessarily mean shazaam instantly, it might mean over time.

I personally find arguing about how God accomplished or accomplishes things to be offputting.

Show Me the Wire
01-15-2010, 10:23 PM
What is also interesting is your lack of comment on boxcars' "appearance of age" thesis.
I guess even you are not willing to go out on THAT limb. You also have not delved into the actual age question.

Einstein as any individual scientist may be wrong any number of times, but science is designed to avoid biases. Not perfect, but eventually certain issues become settled science. Peer review based on repeatable testable experimental observation tends to remove false assumptions. And as I have repeatably mentioned, it is not a test for the existence or non-existence of God.
It can measure and calculate physical phenomena without using belief systems.


He wasn't wrong. He was right, but his personal bias clouded his judgment. Personal bias of scientists is the issue, not if a scientist makes an error during a scientific investigation.

Einstein knew through his own work, proven through peer review, the universe was not eternal, but he clung to this personal bias.

It is not important how God created the Universe, what is important is that God created the Universe and all that is in it, including you and me.

The only telling item is your use of deflection, when you should concede. Scientists are people, people with biases, that effect their work and their beliefs about the universe and its make-up.

boxcar
01-15-2010, 11:06 PM
It can measure and calculate physical phenomena without using belief systems.

No, No, No! A thousand times NO! Scientists are no different than any other human being. Scientists are not immune from their having their own world views.

Furthermore, every theory is built on a set of assumptions -- a set of presuppositions, which the scientists BELIEVE are true. This is why they formulated them to begin with. No one operates in a faithless void. No one. Everyone believes something and believes in something. The only way an Evangelical Christian and an Evolutionist differ is that the objects of their respective faiths differ. That's it!

Boxcar

boxcar
01-15-2010, 11:26 PM
Since God is God and since we don't know how S(He) does things, why can't we believe that God created the universe and everything in it according to plan, and that the plan was evolutionary. God created man in His own image doesn't necessarily mean shazaam instantly, it might mean over time.

I personally find arguing about how God accomplished or accomplishes things to be offputting.

Because if God didn't create Adam, then neither was there a Last Adam (and Christ is supposed to be the is the antitype to Adam). If Man is not made in God's image, if Man wasn't tested for righteousness sake, then there was no Fall. If there was no Fall, then mankind is answerable to no one, ultimately. In fact, in a creation/evolution model, God would have to be a deistic being, totally divorced from the human race. Why would a theistic God "create" man through some primordial soup to wind up being made in the image of some Ape? And if God is deistic, then deistic beings do not communicate with their creation, etc., etc., which means there's no such thing as divine revelation. The ramifications and implications to a creation-evolution model are numerous are profound. There are many who actually believe in this model, and gladly so because they realize that they're off the moral culpability hook, if the model is true. Who are such going to answer to -- the primordial soup out of which they crawled? (Or I suppose they could blame their monkey ancestors for their poor upbringing.) :)

Boxcar

hcap
01-17-2010, 06:02 AM
No, No, No! A thousand times NO! Scientists are no different than any other human being. Scientists are not immune from their having their own world views.

Furthermore, every theory is built on a set of assumptions -- a set of presuppositions, which the scientists BELIEVE are true. This is why they formulated them to begin with. No one operates in a faithless void. No one. Everyone believes something and believes in something. The only way an Evangelical Christian and an Evolutionist differ is that the objects of their respective faiths differ. That's it!

BoxcarProves beyond a shadow of doubt you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to the scientific method.

The Evangelical Christian and the Evolutionist differ 180 degrees. One starts from a conclusion and fits the facts without evidence, and ignoring facts from what the underlying reality of the natural world actually shows. And the other is constantly checking with the actual evidence for flaws in theory.

hcap
01-17-2010, 06:15 AM
Box,

Your "explanation" of the age of the universe is only a dodge.
Did God plant false evidence in the earth? Did God rig the laws of physics?


"God and Moses are playing golf. Moses hits the ball, and it lands a few yards from the hole.

Then God hits the ball, and it lands in the water. Suddenly, a fish grabs the ball in its mouth, and carries it to the dirt. Then a frog hops over, picks up the ball in its mouth, and hops away, dropping it on the grass. Then a bird swoops down, picks up the ball in its mouth, flies 10 feet over the hole, and drops it, landing it perfectly in the hole.

Moses turns to God and says, "are we going to play golf, or are you just going to screw around?"



Why play a game with laws and rules created for the creatures of your creation, only to cheat on the crucial issues?

boxcar
01-17-2010, 01:31 PM
Proves beyond a shadow of doubt you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to the scientific method.

The Evangelical Christian and the Evolutionist differ 180 degrees. One starts from a conclusion and fits the facts without evidence, and ignoring facts from what the underlying reality of the natural world actually shows. And the other is constantly checking with the actual evidence for flaws in theory.

The "scientific method" doesn't change what man is, including scientists. With evolutionary theory, your vaunted method starts out with with a set of presuppositions and none of these include God or creation in them. As stated in my crime analogy, one can look at evidence and still wind up with the wrong conclusions.

Moreover, you have it all backwards insofar as Evangelicals and Evolutionists are concerned. I'm a Christian because all the evidence in the bible tells me that it's divinely inspired. I did not start out with that presupposition when I started investigating scripture. (Quite to the contrary, I might add!) But this isn't the case with the Evolutionist. Darwin, for example, started out with the presupposition that everything evolved, built an elaborate set of assumptions upon that theory and then scientists, ever since have been constantly modifying the information because they see that previous assumptions were all wet. And I confidently predict that evolutionary theory will always remain in a state of flux -- it will never be settled because scientists will continue to have to drive those square pegs into round holes to force the evidence to fit their presuppositions -- just the same way you do, for example, when it comes to interpreting scripture. You have concoct a contrived interpretation, of the Genesis Creation Account to make it say that's all pure [fictional] allegory.

As the apostle Paul said in Romans, all men suppress the truth about God's creation in unrighteousness -- scientists included! The Fall guaranteed Equal Outcomes for all!

Boxcar

boxcar
01-17-2010, 02:48 PM
Box,

Your "explanation" of the age of the universe is only a dodge.
Did God plant false evidence in the earth? Did God rig the laws of physics?

For the evidence to be "false", you would have to prove that the "how" aspect of creation somehow contradicts the "when" part. Since there is no violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, then God is not a deceiver. He didn't plant any false evidence. You have to demonstrate how Natural Revelation conflicts with Special Revelation. But don't waste your time, 'cap, because you're not going to be able to pull it off. There are no violations of this Law, therefore, no falsehoods. Your empty, unsubstantiated claim to the contrary carries about as much weight, has about as much credibility as BO's promises. :rolleyes:

"God and Moses are playing golf. Moses hits the ball, and it lands a few yards from the hole.

Then God hits the ball, and it lands in the water. Suddenly, a fish grabs the ball in its mouth, and carries it to the dirt. Then a frog hops over, picks up the ball in its mouth, and hops away, dropping it on the grass. Then a bird swoops down, picks up the ball in its mouth, flies 10 feet over the hole, and drops it, landing it perfectly in the hole.

Moses turns to God and says, "are we going to play golf, or are you just going to screw around?"

Why play a game with laws and rules created for the creatures of your creation, only to cheat on the crucial issues?

You libs need to declare a perpetual moratorium on analogies because none of you are capable of coming up with any that are logically suitable. (Plus your inane analogies give me a headache, already. :rolleyes: )

When did the act of creation become a game? When did two persons compete in the creation process?

The analogy that perfectly fits here is the one I used several posts ago about how just as an artist has license to create his work, his masterpiece anyway he sees fit, so, too, does God. He had license to create his masterpiece anyway he wanted -- according to his good pleasure, not ours! According to his wisdom, not ours! According to his purposes, not ours! God's ways are infinitely higher than ours; therefore it's incumbent on the creature to try to understand and believe his creator through what he has revealed about himself in his word.

Your bogus objection and equally worthless analogy remind me of these words written by the apostle, also in the Book of Romans:

Rom 9:19-21
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
NASB

In the larger context of this passage, Paul penned a formal theological argument for an aspect of soteriology commonly referred to in reformed circles as unconditional election. And the apostle, after writing his strong words, fully anticipated, in the above text, how the unrighteous would respond to his argument. And this is you, Mr. Hcap! In principle, you are responding to my biblically-based argument in the exact same way. You are essentially saying, "Why did God create the universe this way?" In your arrogance, you are really trying to exert some kind of creatures' rights over God -- as though we creatures have some right to demand or expect that our Creator should have created everything in accordance with our good pleasure. But in the real world, 'cap, the Potter does have the right over the clay, and this is why my simple, straightforward analogy that I presented earlier is right on the mark! Just as any human artist can freely take artistic license with his work, with his creation, then how much more should the Creator who created all the artists!? :bang: :bang:

Mankind is faced with a very clear choice: It can put its faith in a man-made religion called Science which has for its high priests the unrighteous, untrustworthy and all manner of deceivers who all suppress the truth about creation in unrighteousness; or Man can examine the truth claims of the bible and put his rational faith in God who is holy, righteous, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient. Once you understand even the rudimentary things about God, then it becomes even clearer (over, above and beyond the Law of Non-Contradiction) that if the Apparent Age Theory of the universe is true, then it is not at all inconsistent with God's holy character.

Boxcar

hcap
01-18-2010, 06:22 AM
Forget evolutionary theory. That is a much larger issue. Just tell me how there is a bias in laws of physics that explain and predict real phenomena. Is there a bias in what we know about radioactive theory. Then please explain the technological applications
such as nuclear power and nuclear bombs. We seem to apply these laws of physics quite well.

No scripture can be applied to predict real time physical events such as the mathematics of gravity or silicon chips.
Faith based arguments come up short. You cannot tell me that what we know and can measure, and predict about 1/2 lives of elements are all due to biases in science.

Please stop with scripture as PROOF of anything. Other than your beliefs and faith.
Faith and proof are separated by instances of testable, repeatable evidence.

WeirdWilly
01-18-2010, 07:29 AM
The Berkeley Educational Philosophy:

"All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything" - Principal Skinner

"How do numbers make you feel? What does a plus sign smell like? Is the number 7 odd, or just different?" - Melanie Upfoot

- From "The Simpsons - Girls Just Want To Have Sums"

I believe in a mixed economy with a capitalist base for products and services provided to and for individuals,*
and socialist (or public) control of areas that effect the commons. (roads, electricity, public safety, education, access to health care to name some)

...

*Things such as cars, furniture, food, clothes, drinks, entertainment, insurance (with oversight), and many others should be provided by private enterprise.

I can go for YEARS without going into a building full of sick people and seeing a doctor. I can only go, at most, a few weeks without food.

So, as food is a far bigger life necessity than health care, shouldn't the production and distribution of food be a government task? That way the kind, caring, supremely educated public servants can properly ration out the proper portions of sustinance regardless of anyone's economic situation.

Same thing with clothes. Some places, you may be able to run around naked and be comfortable, but most of the time in most of the country, you need some fabric on your body to keep from getting sick.

So the govt should step in and provide and mandate a national uniform, made from hemp fiber, which meets our physical needs while leveling the playing field between the aesthetically pleasing and the aesthetically challenged.

Remember, a level playing field is the ultimate liberal goal. And getting that level playing field requires bulldozers to knock down the hills and trees.

Snag
01-18-2010, 09:54 AM
And it has to do with living in a world where conservatives refuse to pay their share of living in a society.

Can you back up your statement?

jballscalls
01-18-2010, 10:27 AM
Can you back up your statement?

refuse to pay there fair share?? i would venture a guess that conservatives pay way more than their share of taxes. doesnt the top 20% pay 97% of the taxes?? or something like that?? and i'm willing to bet a big chunk of that 20% is conservative

johnhannibalsmith
01-18-2010, 10:38 AM
Sorry, but that is the impression I get from numerous posts about everyone looking out for themselves; and comments about how "I got mine, too bad about everybody else" How many times have I read here about how we should get rid of Social Security and Medicare is socialized medicine.

I'll spare Mostpost from re-typing his original response to my same query earlier on page 1.

boxcar
01-18-2010, 12:10 PM
Forget evolutionary theory.

Great. That's easy for me to do. Don't have to ask me twice with respect to that rubbish. And for that matter, I'll forget about your inane objections to the Appearance of Age theory and equally lame attempt at an analogy.

That is a much larger issue. Just tell me how there is a bias in laws of physics that explain and predict real phenomena. Is there a bias in what we know about radioactive theory. Then please explain the technological applications
such as nuclear power and nuclear bombs. We seem to apply these laws of physics quite well.

Why couldn't these kinds of things be explained from a Creationist standpoint instead of just from the view of Naturalism? What's your point? Is not God also the creator of all Laws?

Look, 'cap, I am done with this discussion. I simply broached an old theory (again, it's not my invention) that certainly seems to make sense from the standpoint of biblical revelation. You have raised one objection after another, and I have demonstrated from scripture and from the Law of Non-Contradiction how they hold no water. I have also proved logically how the universe could at once be "old-new", apart from any contradiction.

You are so blinded by your world view of Naturalism, you can't see anything else as you grope in the darkness of that world. Is it any wonder the apostle wrote that men suppress the truth about the creation in unrighteousness? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

hcap
01-18-2010, 06:53 PM
There are fields of physics where future events can be predicted with great accuracy. Where technological inventions based on those same laws of physics work predictably and repeatedly. We understand practical ramifications of these laws extremely well. Should I assume you accept those fields of physics up to the point JUST BEFORE those same disciplines indicate the universe is billions of years old, not thousands? God according to you, seems to have set up his "natural revelation" internally consistent and practically usable by his mortally created creatures until they try to arrive at a logically and justified crucial conclusion of AGE.

Then for some reason God tosses those conclusions based on PRIOR demonstrable correct reasoning and evidence out the window.

Radioactive theory is well understood and does not depend on faith based belief of individual scientists. It is quite clear without any built in prejudices. How can the physics of radioactive decay be wrong? I am not arguing existence or non-existence of God. I am not arguing evolution. Just physical law.

boxcar
01-18-2010, 07:07 PM
There are fields of physics where future events can be predicted with great accuracy. Where technological inventions based on those same laws of physics work predictably and repeatedly. We understand practical ramifications of these laws extremely well. Should I assume you accept those fields of physics up to the point JUST BEFORE those same disciplines indicate the universe is billions of years old, not thousands? God according to you, seems to have set up his "natural revelation" internally consistent and practically usable by his mortally created creatures until they try to arrive at a logically and justified crucial conclusion of AGE.

God created logic, too. The reason scientists confuse the "how" for the "when" is because God isn't part of their equation. They're leaving out a crucial part of his revelation because of their built-in anti-God/anti-creation bias (with most scientists, anyhow).

Boxcar

hcap
01-18-2010, 07:25 PM
2+2=4

Logical reasoning. Basic math. The beginnings of further mathematical theory.

If God set up the laws of logic and mathematics, and arithmetic, why would basic math be correct and calculus wrong?
If logic is correct part of the way, why not all the way?

Radioactivity is well known. Why be afraid of cellular damage and nuclear proliferation, and then refute that 1/2 lives are in some cases measured in millions of years?

hcap
01-18-2010, 07:41 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/6/a/56a04a849a1772efc82b68e21880cef4.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Triangle_Sides.svg/200px-Triangle_Sides.svg.png

So the above is correct, but further developments of trigonometric concepts demonstrate bias???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Circle-trig6.svg/300px-Circle-trig6.svg.png

Basic radioactive decay is the first instance (Pythagorean theorem of geometry), and further developments of the same mathematical laws are like trigonometric functions. If you accept geometry, trigonometry follow logically. Or is it only an appearance?

Snag
01-18-2010, 08:29 PM
hcap, 46 already used that example last week. That is old news.

boxcar
01-18-2010, 08:29 PM
2+2=4

Logical reasoning. Basic math. The beginnings of further mathematical theory.

If God set up the laws of logic and mathematics, and arithmetic, why would basic math be correct and calculus wrong?
If logic is correct part of the way, why not all the way?

Radioactivity is well known. Why be afraid of cellular damage and nuclear proliferation, and then refute that 1/2 lives are in some cases measured in millions of years?

Paradoxes? :rolleyes:

Boxcar