 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: She's back with another awesome article...
|
|
(...) Hmm, I'd argue that one does get something from almost any charitable contribution (beyond satisfaction, which of course has value itself). For example, if I give to a homeless shelter, then someone gets to spend a night inside instead of on (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) The problem as I understand it is that this is a widely regarded as a work of fiction (or nonsense?) by our own NPS geologists and educators, yet it is being sold in a manner which makes it appear that the NPS regards it as a legitimate (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research, apart from the actual (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Hi Avery: Thanks for the input re: sonar in the other thread. Regarding this book--is it presented as a work of science or a work of fiction? If the latter, then I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the Federal Parks Service would (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Okay, two things about this: One, the article makes this sound as if it was from Bush's own hand that this was allowed. Probably some bias there. But, this was from the administration. So, it could have been anyone under Bush acting to support (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Two things -- One, it said Bush administration, not Dubbya himself. And two, it is quite common to have various novels of fiction and non-fiction pertaining to national monuments in the book stores at the visiting centers. They are probably (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: She's back with another awesome article...
|
|
(...) I appreciate her style as well. (...) I don't know how much I donate to charities, but I also know it's more than 0 percent. I don't know if contributing to the local Jazz radio station to keep it on the air is "philanthropistic" of me or (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: She's back with another awesome article...
|
|
(...) Good question, how to treat profanity when embedded in a site URL or email address. I'll bounce it around with the rest of the gang and see what they think. Meanwhile, as ways to find the site, there's Makeashorterlink.com if you wanted to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | She's back with another awesome article...
|
|
Not wanting to make a link to the site due to the use of profanity, but one of my favourite very-infrequently updated blogs has just been updated. TMB mentions 'flat tax', 'libertarianism', and such like in a wonderful little article. Of course, as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) I'd have to assume they wouldn't, but I dunno. I guess some do: (URL) funny-- they do give some actual evidence suggesting that certain areas were created 'in a catastrophe', and that there's inaccuracies in carbon dating, but not once is (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Just further proof that Dubya is a blithering moron. The sad thing is that it says something about the number of blithering morons in this country that he could almost get elected in the first place. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(URL) Canyon made by Noah's flood? I don't even know where to begin... Do even Creationists believe that? Yet supposedly, as stated in the article, Dubya supports that. This is the guy running the most powerful nation in the world--"Grand Canyon (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Well, in his defense, he was liberally lubricated with a certain illegal Romulan paint-stripper. That stuff can't be good for your brain cells, especially not after you've had some vile space-bug in there chewing on the wiring. (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Like those posters in the t-shirt shop--"everything I needed to know about life I learned from Star Trek..." Here's something I gleaned from IMDB.com the other day-- the "Guess who's coming to dinner" line was suppose to be spoken by Uhura. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
