sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
A conclusion not based on evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should ID be taught in public schools?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I'm saying that Father Heathen did not mean that the social conservatives literally owned the Republican party. Rather, he was referring to the fact that they hold much sway, due to the size of the voting bloc that they represent in a general election. This is why the neocons that truly control the party (as of now) pander to them.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Another conclusion not based on evidence.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Actually, yes, there is: Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Ahhh. Now we get to the point you are making.
You appear to be in denial about both the influence that the religious right has within the Republican party, and the amount of "pander" that their potential votes entitle them to.
If you doubt this relationship, perhaps you can explain the 180 degree reversal of John McCain over the last 18 months regarding his views on Falwell, Robertson, pro-choice, and his religious views. What do you attribute this "conversion" to, if not his pandering to the religious right?
tomspug
Absorbant
The religious right does indeed make up a large part of the Republican party (much to my chagrin). The CNN debate at Saddleback Church is evidence to that fact. It is a problem that is increasingly worrying me. I am starting to see blurred lines between American politics and Middle-Eastern politics, where you have religious leaders feeling that it is their obligation to hold political power.
I think that in this new century, this could perhaps become a major political problem and a danger to the church. Pastors REALLY need to get out of politics. It is not their purpose. If they want to run for office, they should do what Mike Huckabee did, not try to use their pulpit as leverage on the populace that trusts them.
I think that in this new century, this could perhaps become a major political problem and a danger to the church. Pastors REALLY need to get out of politics. It is not their purpose. If they want to run for office, they should do what Mike Huckabee did, not try to use their pulpit as leverage on the populace that trusts them.
Obama and McCain are going to answer questions about their faith as they both attempt to pander for votes on the same stage.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
And it will be a sickening display of false adulation.
I don't think I can bear to watch.
It will be a good show if Obama can have his teleprompter with him.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I sure hope so Scarecrow. All we need is for him to have a senior moment.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Education of both is better than one.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
IMO,I see evolution in the book of Genesis.
blackout
Violet.
I see absolutely no reason why the whole subject cannot be raised.
But teachers should NEVER be telling students WHAT to think.
They should be encouraging thoughtful, non-superstitious,
rational, and intelligent conversation.
If there is some kind of an "issue" in the world,
regarding something or another,
is there anything wrong with setting aside a bit of time
to look at it all? And kick it around a bit?
That is how young people learn to discern, no?
Open discussion is never a threat,
but indoctrination is an atrocity.
I certainly think our high school students could use critical thinking skills,
so they are less apt to fall prey to one indoctrination or another
later on in life.
But teachers should NEVER be telling students WHAT to think.
They should be encouraging thoughtful, non-superstitious,
rational, and intelligent conversation.
If there is some kind of an "issue" in the world,
regarding something or another,
is there anything wrong with setting aside a bit of time
to look at it all? And kick it around a bit?
That is how young people learn to discern, no?
Open discussion is never a threat,
but indoctrination is an atrocity.
I certainly think our high school students could use critical thinking skills,
so they are less apt to fall prey to one indoctrination or another
later on in life.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well that's fascinating, but what does it have to do with the subject of science education?
The mathematical improbabilities of mankind coming about by accident prove that intelligent design should be taught in school.
Intelligent Design of the Cosmos: A Mathematical Proof
Technically, a "proof" is absolutely air-tight, and with no possible exceptions, ...however, in this article I'll be using probabilities, in which (strictly speaking) there could be a possible chance (however small) that an event might possibly occur ---but if the probability is vanishingly small, then the chance of something occurring randomly (without an intelligent designer) should reasonably be considered to be zero, while the chance of intelligent design should reasonably be considered to be virtually 100% proven. We will be utilizing numbers based largely on the analysis of astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ---who is a post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology.
has been known for about 70 years, that the galaxies of the universe are moving apart and away from each other, in similar fashion to raisins moving apart and away from each other in an expanding lump of dough. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble's measurements on more than 40 galaxies established that the galaxies of the universe are indeed expanding away from each other at several hundred miles per second, as an explosion would propel exploded pieces from each other. That explosion-event is now popularly called the "Big Bang," and there is left-over heat (or "background radiation") throughout the universe which (along with much other evidence) leaves little doubt that this hot explosive event occurred. In addition, recent research, such as data from the "BOOMERANG" experiment (short for "Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics") have confirmed that the universe will most probably expand forever, because there's not enough gravity in the mass of the universe to stop the expansion, and then bring it all together again into a "Big Crunch."
Astrophysicists such as Stephen Hawking determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang was something called a "singularity," which is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions (and time) reduced down to an infinitely small point of zero volume. ---So, matter, 3-dimensional space, and time virtually did not exist before the Big Bang.
The expanding universe is an important discovery, because if we "reverse the film" of that expansion, then we arrive back at a starting-point for its beginning ...and if there is a beginning, there must logically be a "beginner" to initiate the Big Bang. In light of this, the thoughts of many people go to the first verse of the Bible, which states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). ---This powerful evidence contradicts worldviews and religions that posit an eternally existing universe, or views (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, & New Age philosophies) which posit the idea of cosmic "reincarnation" with an oscillating universe that eternally expands and contracts; ---rather, ---the Big Bang would confirm the view that "the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" - Hebrews 11:3. In addition, ---unlike any other supposedly "holy writings"--- the Bible alone says that there was a "beginning of time" (2Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2), ---and God was causing effects before that beginning (John 17:5 & Colos. 1:16-17).
The Balanced Bang: In order for life to be possible in the universe, the explosive power of the Big Bang needed to be extremely closely matched to the amount of mass and balanced with the force of gravity. If the bang was slightly too weak, the expanding matter would have collapsed back in on itself before any planets suitable for life had a chance to form, ---but if the bang was slightly too strong, the resultant matter would have been only gas that was so diffuse and expanding so fast, that no stars or planets could have formed at all.
Science writer Gregg Easterbrook explains the required explosive power-balance of the Big Bang, saying that, "Researchers have calculated that, if the ratio of matter and energy to the volume of space ...had not been within about one-quadrillionth of one percent of ideal at the moment of the Big Bang, the incipient universe would have collapsed back on itself or suffered runaway relativity effects" (My emphasis.) (ref. G.Easterbrook, "Science Sees the Light", The New Republic, Oct.12, 1998, p.26).
---Putting it another way, in terms of the expansion rate of the universe as a result of the Big Bang: "What's even more amazing is how delicately balanced that expansion rate must be for life to exist. It cannot differ by more than one part in 1055 from the actual rate." (My emphasis.) (Ref: H.Ross, 1995, as cited above, p.116). (Note: 1055 is the number 1 with 55 zeros after it ---and 1055 is about the number of atoms that make up planet earth).
THE PROBABILITY: The chances we can conservatively assign to this: It was about one chance out of 1020 that the force of the Big Bang could have randomly been properly balanced with the mass & gravity of the universe, in order for stars and planets to form, so that life could exist here in our cosmos.
Intelligent Design of the Cosmos: A Mathematical Proof
Technically, a "proof" is absolutely air-tight, and with no possible exceptions, ...however, in this article I'll be using probabilities, in which (strictly speaking) there could be a possible chance (however small) that an event might possibly occur ---but if the probability is vanishingly small, then the chance of something occurring randomly (without an intelligent designer) should reasonably be considered to be zero, while the chance of intelligent design should reasonably be considered to be virtually 100% proven. We will be utilizing numbers based largely on the analysis of astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ---who is a post-doctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology.
has been known for about 70 years, that the galaxies of the universe are moving apart and away from each other, in similar fashion to raisins moving apart and away from each other in an expanding lump of dough. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble's measurements on more than 40 galaxies established that the galaxies of the universe are indeed expanding away from each other at several hundred miles per second, as an explosion would propel exploded pieces from each other. That explosion-event is now popularly called the "Big Bang," and there is left-over heat (or "background radiation") throughout the universe which (along with much other evidence) leaves little doubt that this hot explosive event occurred. In addition, recent research, such as data from the "BOOMERANG" experiment (short for "Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics") have confirmed that the universe will most probably expand forever, because there's not enough gravity in the mass of the universe to stop the expansion, and then bring it all together again into a "Big Crunch."
Astrophysicists such as Stephen Hawking determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang was something called a "singularity," which is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions (and time) reduced down to an infinitely small point of zero volume. ---So, matter, 3-dimensional space, and time virtually did not exist before the Big Bang.
The expanding universe is an important discovery, because if we "reverse the film" of that expansion, then we arrive back at a starting-point for its beginning ...and if there is a beginning, there must logically be a "beginner" to initiate the Big Bang. In light of this, the thoughts of many people go to the first verse of the Bible, which states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). ---This powerful evidence contradicts worldviews and religions that posit an eternally existing universe, or views (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, & New Age philosophies) which posit the idea of cosmic "reincarnation" with an oscillating universe that eternally expands and contracts; ---rather, ---the Big Bang would confirm the view that "the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" - Hebrews 11:3. In addition, ---unlike any other supposedly "holy writings"--- the Bible alone says that there was a "beginning of time" (2Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2), ---and God was causing effects before that beginning (John 17:5 & Colos. 1:16-17).
The Balanced Bang: In order for life to be possible in the universe, the explosive power of the Big Bang needed to be extremely closely matched to the amount of mass and balanced with the force of gravity. If the bang was slightly too weak, the expanding matter would have collapsed back in on itself before any planets suitable for life had a chance to form, ---but if the bang was slightly too strong, the resultant matter would have been only gas that was so diffuse and expanding so fast, that no stars or planets could have formed at all.
Science writer Gregg Easterbrook explains the required explosive power-balance of the Big Bang, saying that, "Researchers have calculated that, if the ratio of matter and energy to the volume of space ...had not been within about one-quadrillionth of one percent of ideal at the moment of the Big Bang, the incipient universe would have collapsed back on itself or suffered runaway relativity effects" (My emphasis.) (ref. G.Easterbrook, "Science Sees the Light", The New Republic, Oct.12, 1998, p.26).
---Putting it another way, in terms of the expansion rate of the universe as a result of the Big Bang: "What's even more amazing is how delicately balanced that expansion rate must be for life to exist. It cannot differ by more than one part in 1055 from the actual rate." (My emphasis.) (Ref: H.Ross, 1995, as cited above, p.116). (Note: 1055 is the number 1 with 55 zeros after it ---and 1055 is about the number of atoms that make up planet earth).
THE PROBABILITY: The chances we can conservatively assign to this: It was about one chance out of 1020 that the force of the Big Bang could have randomly been properly balanced with the mass & gravity of the universe, in order for stars and planets to form, so that life could exist here in our cosmos.
Continued
The Strong Nuclear Force
---This is the force which binds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. If the strong nuclear force were too weak, protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen (with a lone proton in its nucleus). However, if the strong nuclear force were too strong, the protons and neutrons would tend to stick together so much that there would basically only be heavy elements, but no hydrogen ---and if this were the case, then life would also not be possible, because hydrogen is a key element in water and in life-chemistry. THE PROBABILITY: If the strong nuclear force were only 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it in fact is, then life would be impossible. This correct range (of 2.3%) would indicate about 43 incorrect ranges of the same size that would destroy the possibility of life, ---therefore, we can conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 10 that the strong nuclear force might have randomly possessed the correct strength to make life possible in our cosmos.
The Electromagnetic Force
If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (e.g., water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 100.
[SIZE=+1]6. The Ratio of the Electromagnetic Force to the Gravitational Force[/SIZE]
It has been established that if the ratio of the electromagnetic force were barely stronger relative to the gravitational force by just one part in 1040, then only smaller stars would form. On the other hand, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force were weaker compared to the gravitational force by a mere one part in 1040, then only larger stars would form. The problem is, that both types of stars are necessary for life to be possible, because the larger stars is the place where life-essential elements are produced by thermonuclear fusion, ---and the smaller stars (like our sun) are necessary because only such stars burn long enough, and in a stable manner, to support life near to them. (ref. H.Ross, cited, p.117).
In a similar vein, cosmologist Paul Davies explains: "If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change in the other way, and they would all be blue giants" (His italics; my underline). (Ref. P. Davies, cited above, '82, p.73). ---The problem with red dwarfs and blue giants, is that the color spectrum given off by either color of star cannot sustain life because the photosynthetic reaction would be inadequate. (ref. H. Ross, cited, p.139). THE PROBABILITY: As required for photosynthesis, ---since the ratio of the electromagnetic force cannot vary from the gravitational force by any more than (plus or minus) one part in 1040, it would be conservative to say that the probability of achieving the required ratio between these two forces, would be one chance out of 1030. ---(Remember: 1040 is the number 1 followed by 40 zeros ; 1030 is the number 1 followed by 30 zeros, and it is ten billion times smaller than 1040.)
The Strong Nuclear Force
---This is the force which binds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. If the strong nuclear force were too weak, protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen (with a lone proton in its nucleus). However, if the strong nuclear force were too strong, the protons and neutrons would tend to stick together so much that there would basically only be heavy elements, but no hydrogen ---and if this were the case, then life would also not be possible, because hydrogen is a key element in water and in life-chemistry. THE PROBABILITY: If the strong nuclear force were only 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it in fact is, then life would be impossible. This correct range (of 2.3%) would indicate about 43 incorrect ranges of the same size that would destroy the possibility of life, ---therefore, we can conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 10 that the strong nuclear force might have randomly possessed the correct strength to make life possible in our cosmos.
The Electromagnetic Force
If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (e.g., water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.
THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 100.
[SIZE=+1]6. The Ratio of the Electromagnetic Force to the Gravitational Force[/SIZE]
It has been established that if the ratio of the electromagnetic force were barely stronger relative to the gravitational force by just one part in 1040, then only smaller stars would form. On the other hand, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force were weaker compared to the gravitational force by a mere one part in 1040, then only larger stars would form. The problem is, that both types of stars are necessary for life to be possible, because the larger stars is the place where life-essential elements are produced by thermonuclear fusion, ---and the smaller stars (like our sun) are necessary because only such stars burn long enough, and in a stable manner, to support life near to them. (ref. H.Ross, cited, p.117).
In a similar vein, cosmologist Paul Davies explains: "If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change in the other way, and they would all be blue giants" (His italics; my underline). (Ref. P. Davies, cited above, '82, p.73). ---The problem with red dwarfs and blue giants, is that the color spectrum given off by either color of star cannot sustain life because the photosynthetic reaction would be inadequate. (ref. H. Ross, cited, p.139). THE PROBABILITY: As required for photosynthesis, ---since the ratio of the electromagnetic force cannot vary from the gravitational force by any more than (plus or minus) one part in 1040, it would be conservative to say that the probability of achieving the required ratio between these two forces, would be one chance out of 1030. ---(Remember: 1040 is the number 1 followed by 40 zeros ; 1030 is the number 1 followed by 30 zeros, and it is ten billion times smaller than 1040.)