posted
Hmm. Going to press before your peer-reviewed results are out? Not quite cricket, that, and a bad sign. Still, at least they did submit a paper.
I do hope this is true, it would totally blow fundie cretinists out of the water.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't sound like they went to the press, it sounds like someone at the private meeting was the source.
quote: WASHINGTON -- A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.
The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.
What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.
quote: it would totally blow fundie cretinists out of the water
Ha! How’s that? Does the Bible say Earth is the only place where life was created? By your logic I guess if we find a dinosaur fossil with a man then evolutionist are blown out of the water
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:By your logic I guess if we find a dinosaur fossil with a man then evolutionist are blown out of the water.
Well, yes. At the very least, we would have to come up with a very good explanation. That's the whole point of a scientific theory, see : It can in fact be blown out of the water by unexpected new data. That's also why the cretinists went to such lengths in the sixties and seventies to fake precisely the evidence you suggest; indeed, some of them still cling to those old footprints, years after they've been shown to be hoaxes.
And yes, the Bible does state that the Earth was the only place life was created. If you insist on a literal interpretation. You can have it one way, or the other way, but not both ways.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, would you please stop using the term cretinists? It is not an accepted term that means anything to anyone other than you, and it serves no purpose other than to enflame the opposition. It is not respectful, polite, or condusive to rational discourse to call people who disagree with you cretins in a blanket statement like that.
I think I feel about this the same way some conservatives on the board must have felt about Bean Counter... please, either don't be intentionally insulting or get off my side.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think 'cretinist' is a highly accurate term. Possibly there are some in that camp who actually are not really fooled by their own propaganda; for them, 'liars' might be more correct. But the rest really are being rather stupid.
However, since you ask so nicely, I'll stop using the word.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's one of those things where I think preceived accuracy is irrelevant. If it makes people less likely to listen to your arguements rationally, it isn't helping your case.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good lord! I wonder if KoM is Bean Counter and (s)he's just playing both ends against the middle. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, now you really are crossing the line of acceptable decorum. Furthermore, the Bible doesn't say anything about the existence of life on other planets.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I agree that it doesn't. But the Creationists do not agree. I am not arguing this as my own position, I am referring theirs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't, and they don't say it does. You are not only being extremely arrogant and insulting, you're also being quite idiotic and ill-informed. Not to mention completely bigoted.
posted
I'm not sure I'd say "completely" bigoted, but I'm going to have to agree with holes's post, pretty much.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do they not, then? Here is Answers in Genesis, the least rabid of the Creationist websites :
quote:There are no biblical or moral reasons why God should not have formed other planets, as well as those in our own solar system, on Day 4 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:14-19).
Whether there is life on any planet other than Earth is another matter. The Bible teaches that life began on Earth through a process of commanded-by-God creation (Genesis 1:11-27). It also tells us that God's purposes are centred on Earth. Thus God created Earth (on Day 1) before 'the lights in the firmament of heaven' (on Day 4), which were 'to divide the day from the night' and were 'for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years' (Genesis 1:14), i.e. for the benefit of mankind.
Man and woman were both 'made in the likeness of God' (Genesis 1:27). This, coupled with factors such as the Fall, the Incarnation, the redemption of mankind through the once-only death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Coming of Christ to Earth, and the coming Judgment of all mankind, show Earth's unique importance among the billions of billions of stars in the universe. This is despite the frequent belittling, by evolutionists, of the importance of Earth.
The above also implies that God did not create any other life forms elsewhere in the universe.
My emphasis. They go on to hedge, by saying that life on other planets, if / when found, may have come originally from Earth, though how they fit this into 6000 years is not clear to me. So I was perhaps being a little too optimistic in saying life on Mars would blow them out of the water.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because one (or even a few) websites express this as their (biblically unfounded) opinion is no reason to lump all creationists into the same package.
I suggest you read some C.S. Lewis, whose views are subscribed to by a great many more creationists than that website.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I've said it before and I'll risk being repetitive by saying again that I agree with your stance on evolution/creationism, but you really should make an effort at diplomacy when this topic arises. It's obvious that this is your hot-spot (which we all have) but it would be admirable as well as more productive to tone down your disdain.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually am a touch more circumspect when arguing with actual creationists, as I don't want them to go away unconvinced. But, since no-one on this board is a young-earth creationist to the best of my knowledge, I see no need for such tactics here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As near as I can tell, no one on this board should be Amish.
Ha ha! Those stupid Amish, with their butter churns and hats and beards. They're living a LIE!!! If they knew how awesome life was with microwaves and TV and poly-cotton blends, they'd never spend their days selling quilts out of their horse-drawn carts. Idiots.
It's nice to know that I can blanket-insult a group of people I don't like as long as they're not around.
posted
I originally read "fundie" to mean funding agencies. Duh. But "cretinist" is really no more polite than "retard" as it is used to describe some brain disorders. I think there is one involving severe sodium imbalance.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Believing in a young earth has nothing whatsoever to do with believing that only Earth has life on it. One comes from a rigid interpretation of the Bible. The other is an attempt to fill in a gap where the Bible is silent by guesswork. And I can say that a majority of them don't subscribe to that view.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryuko, I was responding to the critique of my tactics, rather than my politeness.
dh, you have no idea what you're talking about. With assertions out of the way, I provided a link showing people highly respected in the Creationist community arguing that there is no creation on other planets; here is another one :
quote:Thus, although it is all but certain that no other man-like creatures6-9 inhabit other worlds, it is true that in God’s universe, and possibly on the stars themselves, there exists a vast host of intelligent and powerful beings, the angels of God. Though it is futile to try to establish contact with them by such devices as space-ships and radio telescopes, we can communicate with God Himself through prayer and through His Word, by faith, and the angels then are “sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).
My emphasis. Do you have a similar link?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you read your own highlighted statement you'll see that it only refers to "man-like" creatures. In other words, no other H. sapiens, but it doesn't exclude anything else amoebas to zebras.
Also is there something that you and other non-Americans like Johnathan Howard don't get about the internet? Anyone can create a website and it doesn't make it representative of anyone's opinion.
posted
I... I'm just outraged, Ry. *immediatly emails Ry's post to all the Amish on my mailing list, hoping for an Amish moblog firestorm*
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, that is why I noted that these are the most respected Creationist websites around. Saying they're not representative is much like saying Hatrack doesn't represent the OSC fanbase, because there are other sites about him out there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point of order: Hatrack doesn't represent the OSC fanbase. It's impossible to guess at how much or how little of OSC's fanbase even uses the internet, let alone posts on fansites. The same goes for Young Earth Creationists.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM's behavior makes an excellent case for the benefits of religion upon society. While there are and will continue to be many atheists who adhere to a higher road by choice and desire, there are others who see no need to adopt such "silly" virtues.
For all KOM's pronouncements that religion makes people irrational, his feelings about religion are amazingly irrational.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, are you accusing me of being immoral? Kindly don't.
And [deadpan] my position on religion would only be irrational if it weren't correct in every particular.[/deadpan]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I think I remember you. Don't you cause trouble all over the place, up and down, right and left?
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: No, I am not. I am only making judgement on specific behavior and beliefs I have seen you express. For example: the belief that absolute honesty is not necessary, and the belief that it is not important to treat all with basic respect. "Immoral" would be too strong a word, I don't know that much about your behavior/beliefs.
It seems to me that most religions teach honesty and respect for others. Therefore, I think the presence of religion makes the world a better place, because while a belief in God is not necessary to hold those virtues, not holding a belief in God can make them easier to rationalize.
Book: To whom are you referring?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be the 'respect for others' that for centuries justified slavery? That even now continues to put down homosexuals? That believes God is perfectly justified in sending people to burn for all eternity (or whatever you believe the punishment is) merely for refusing to worship in the proper fashion? Indeed, such respect as that I believe we can do without.
And I don't get your comments on honesty. In this thread I have been attacked for being too forthright about my views; now you attack me for being dishonest? How so? What did I say to make you think I don't believe honesty is important?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The opinions of the Christians you HEAR about are not necessarily the opinions of all the Christians that exist, I hope you know. Also, as far as I know we haven't taken homosexuals away from their homes yet and forced them to perform manual labor. Even though maybe some Christians would want to take rights away from homosexuals, homosexuals enjoy nearly all of the basic human rights that others do.
Also, I would argue that your politeness is a part of your tactics. You'll find that more people are likely to consider your opinion worthwhile if it's delivered with politeness and respect. As of now, you're really not changing anyone's minds, except maybe people who once thought that you might be a neat guy to talk to about religion or even be around at all. You've certainly changed mine.
posted
We discussed honesty many months ago. I'm not even sure I could find the thread now. It is the thread in which I made some atheists/agnostics very upset with me because I inferred that a person who doesn't believe in God doesn't have any solid reaason to pursue a course of honesty in all matters. You put forth your belief that it is *not* important to be honest in all matters, such as when you deem it to have no negative consequence. Other non-religionists argued that they believe very strongly in being honest whether they know the effects of that honesty or not. You openly disagreed with them.
As for your examples of justified disrespect, I believe many of them were situations of people twisting inherently "Good" religious teachings to support evil designs. Evil people will use any ideology to serve their purposes, religious or otherwise.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and religion makes it so much easier to rationalise... Wasn't that your argument two posts ago? And moreover, the Inquisition were plainly good men by any rational standard. They believed they were saving the souls of their victims from eternal damnation! What possible motive could be purer?
I recall reading one of my mother's anthropology texts, where the author had spoken to a Catholic priest in Brazil. "If a tribe of two hundred dies of disease, but one of them accepts God first, is that a worthwhile exchange," he asked. The reply : "Yes." Do you maintain that this priest was evil? By his premises he is absolutely correct, the natives are going to die anyway, but there's no need for them to suffer Hell.
As for honesty, I must say I cannot recall the thread either, so I can't really tell whether I should retract my position in it or not. I could have been mistaken. Or perhaps I was referring to little white lies?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, and religion makes it so much easier to rationalise... Wasn't that your argument two posts ago?
Absolutely not. I believe evil men will use anything at their disposal to rationalize. Religion is only one thing, and even those who have used religion have usually used other things in connection with religion rather than religion alone, because they realize they cannot make their appeal on religion alone.
Today, as people are more educated and technology allows us to study our reality more efficiently, people tend to use scientific evidence for their rationalizations. But since science is not exact, and we still must fill in so much of what we don't know with our own beliefs about reality, the same facts can be turned to support a variety of different ideas. Just look at Hatrack and the wide range of beliefs held here about just about any topic. The same facts are available to all, and yet because of personal bias, people reach very different conclusions with the same information. And religion is quite often *not* the defining variable.
Many of your accusations are towards the Catholic Church in particular, and I am not equipped to defend it. Dagonee is most qualified in that area.
I think you were referring to "little white lies", but I would have to check to be sure.
quote:(...) because while a belief in God is not necessary to hold those virtues, not holding a belief in God can make them easier to rationalize.
Um, yes. And while a belief in God is not required to kill a bunch of people, it does make it so much easier to rationalise. So, just how are these two arguments different? Getting back to the creationists, some of them have faked evidence to prove their point, like the aforementioned dinosaur footprints. This is a lie, right? Rationalised by the best of motives, to wit, a desire to save souls.
It is not only that religion is a powerful tool in the hands of evil men; as you say, it is not the only such tool. (Although I don't see why that's an argument for not removing it. Should we let Syria acquire nukes, because North Korea has them?) It is also that religion makes good men act in evil ways, by providing false axioms from which to reason. And your reliance on Dagonee is a cheap cop-out; while my examples were drawn from the Catholic church, they apply equally to any religion that believes you must know Christ to achieve salvation. And Dagonee will most certainly not argue this with me, he will accuse me of disrespect and say nothing further.
Tell me then, do you believe that it is worthwhile to kill two hundred people if one soul is thereby saved for all eternity?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you were referring to "little white lies", but I would have to check to be sure.
Beverly
Christianity itself doesn't even have an absolute prohibition against lying, a fact that surprises most Christians.
Many (most?) philosopers, theologians and sociologists acknowledge that 100% percent honesty at all times and situations is not feasible for most people nor even neccesarily a good goal (because of the complications and negative effects 100% honesty can have.)
Absolute honesty is incredibly rare. I don't think I have ever met an absolutely honest person.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said, Bev. I disagree with you a bit, but it's a well-made point. And a pointed one, at that.
In other words, KoM, your methods simply aren't acceptable here. Those kind of insults just don't fly, 'k?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, KoM, I just figured out something very interesting. If you keep referencing the term "cretinist" in quotation marks, you'll be able to keep using it to insult people indirectly! Isn't that neat? Why don't you try it?
See you later, King of all Arrogant Nicknames.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your reliance on Dagonee is a cheap cop-out; while my examples were drawn from the Catholic church, they apply equally to any religion that believes you must know Christ to achieve salvation. And Dagonee will most certainly not argue this with me, he will accuse me of disrespect and say nothing further.
It's not a cop out. Dag is Catholic, Beverly (I assume from her writing) is not. It follows, then, that Dag knows more about the history of the Catholic Church. You picked specific examples, like the Spanish Inquisition, that are specifically Catholic. You're making some very weird generalizations here again. It's like me accusing you of Lenin's crimes because he too was atheist. You have a marvelous double-standard going on here.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PC, I did that precisely twice. Others in this thread have done so three times. Are they insulting people, then?
EL, I must disagree. Since Dag will never argue this with me, Bev has effectively ended the discussion without answering me in any way. That's a cop-out.
However, let me once again rephrase so Catholicism isn't directly involved : Is it, or is it not, a good thing if two hundred people die, but one is saved (and goes to Heaven) who otherwise wouldn't be?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were all going to die anyway, sure.
Oh, but I suppose you're thinking that if God *sent* the disease, then...what? He's really evil? He doesn't really exist? I really am just not understanding this hypothetical situation brought up by this author.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
