[pol?] Don't know but this is weird.

[Axxon]

I'm not sure I can buy this guys arguments.

AUSTIN – The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a Georgia lawmaker's call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

Mr. Chisum said he knows Mr. Bridges from their joint service on a committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"That is a courtesy to a member of the Georgia legislature, is all that is," said Mr. Chisum, a social conservative who opposes abortion rights and wants the state to prefer heterosexuals over gays and lesbians in recruiting foster parents. He authored the 2005 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Mr. Chisum was asked if Mr. Bridges' memo reflects his own views.

"No, absolutely, although I'm a Christian, and I believe in creation," he said. Creation science is the idea that the Earth was created in six days some 6,000 years ago.

"You ought to teach creation as well as the fact of evolution," Mr. Chisum said, though he said "all of those kinds of sciences have holes in them. ... But I'm not about teaching religion in schools."

Now, what gets me is when I look at fixedearth.com and see this

The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:

The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.

This is a HUGE leap and how can you still believe that the Earth doesn't rotate and does it concern any of our Georgia crowd that one of your decision makers believes that it doesn't?

It'd scare me. It's one thing to question that is still question something that is in question but the Earth doesn't rotate??

hxxp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_14tex.ART.State.Edition1.298e1cb.html

[Kodos]

We didn't land on the moon either.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Axxon

This is a HUGE leap and how can you still believe that the Earth doesn't rotate and does it concern any of our Georgia crowd that one of your decision makers believes that it doesn't?

I have no idea and yes.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm not sure I can buy this guys arguments.



Now, what gets me is when I look at fixedearth.com and see this



This is a HUGE leap and how can you still believe that the Earth doesn't rotate and does it concern any of our Georgia crowd that one of your decision makers believes that it doesn't?

It'd scare me. It's one thing to question that is still question something that is in question but the Earth doesn't rotate??

hxxp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_14tex.ART.State.Edition1.298e1cb.html

Unlike many on this board, I'm not a religious person, but this type of question is one of those that makes me ponder...

I generally accept that the earth rotates around the sun, that the earth spins off it's axis by a few degrees, that by someone having a sample of my cell tissue could categorically say that a child was or was not mine, but I don't believe that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to God's son through an immaculate conception, or that God created the Earth, of that Moses parted the seas (and so on, you get the point)

I often ask myself why I generally believe science, but not religion?

The obvious answer is that people with far more intelligence than me have spent years and decades and centuries of research into these things, and because they tell me something is true, I accept it from a higher intellectual authority.

But i have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, no way of testing what they tell me is true - how I do I know that after years of research, they didn't come up with anything and just made stuff up, or made a mistake in their calculations, and backed it up with made up evidence? How do I know the previous theories on which the current scientific formulae are based were right?

The same people who tell me that certain things are so also say that past scientists were in fact incorrect - maybe the current guys are wrong twice, or they were right that the previous guys were wrong, but have also come to incorrect conclusions themselves...

We obviously have a lot of evidence that much scientists have made tremendous and accelerated progress over a prolonged time, but my point is that why do we blindly accept pretty much everything of what science says, and yet a large section of at least my generation of UK society rejects out of hand religious teachings? Both are in essence the same things - people who claim to have more knowledge imparting their wisdom to the uninitiated... On this basis religious leaders and politicians are very similar in that I tend to believe very little of what they say (although at least most religious teachers have decent morals).

Anyway, random thoughts. Carry on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does the model legislation referenced include the rotation bit, or is that a separate thing elsewhere on the website? (The latter is how I interpret your post)

Separately, as the story on the original memo in Georgia has developed, it's now in question whether Rep. Bridges had anything to do with the distribution of it or its content. It was sent to several states, under Bridges name, by a supporter who had talked with him about his efforts to change the way evolution/creation are currently taught in public schools That the supporter is responsible for the memo doesn't appear to be in question, both of them agree on that point, what's in a bit of dispute is how much of the details of it Bridges knew beforehand, which has become controversial not because of evolution/creation issues or anything about Earth's rotation, but rather because it is critical of the Kabbala/Kabbalists & has upset some Jewish groups.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Now, what gets me is when I look at fixedearth.com and see this

The poorest designed web site known to man? Can those people be serious? That site looks like my 6 year old designed it, actually it would probably look better if she did.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Axxon

This is a HUGE leap and how can you still believe that the Earth doesn't rotate and does it concern any of our Georgia crowd that one of your decision makers believes that it doesn't?

It'd scare me. It's one thing to question that is still question something that is in question but the Earth doesn't rotate??

Well, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, any frame of reference is as valid.
So it is as good of a view as any other.

BTW welcome back to the dark ages

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Unlike many on this board, I'm not a religious person, but this type of question is one of those that makes me ponder...

I generally accept that the earth rotates around the sun, that the earth spins off it's axis by a few degrees, that by someone having a sample of my cell tissue could categorically say that a child was or was not mine, but I don't believe that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to God's son through an immaculate conception, or that God created the Earth, of that Moses parted the seas (and so on, you get the point)

I often ask myself why I generally believe science, but not religion?

The obvious answer is that people with far more intelligence than me have spent years and decades and centuries of research into these things, and because they tell me something is true, I accept it from a higher intellectual authority.

But i have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, no way of testing what they tell me is true - how I do I know that after years of research, they didn't come up with anything and just made stuff up, or made a mistake in their calculations, and backed it up with made up evidence? How do I know the previous theories on which the current scientific formulae are based were right?

The same people who tell me that certain things are so also say that past scientists were in fact incorrect - maybe the current guys are wrong twice, or they were right that the previous guys were wrong, but have also come to incorrect conclusions themselves...

We obviously have a lot of evidence that much scientists have made tremendous and accelerated progress over a prolonged time, but my point is that why do we blindly accept pretty much everything of what science says, and yet a large section of at least my generation of UK society rejects out of hand religious teachings? Both are in essence the same things - people who claim to have more knowledge imparting their wisdom to the uninitiated... On this basis religious leaders and politicians are very similar in that I tend to believe very little of what they say (although at least most religious teachers have decent morals).

Anyway, random thoughts. Carry on.

I'm with you but more extreme actually. I don't believe anything is fact at this point but I'm more than willing to accept certain observed facts with observably useful results are usably defined as fact.

It really doesn't concern me that we may find out one day that our theories were not fact. If these theories made life easier and led to the next theory that's fine with me.

The problem with religion is that it can't ever adapt like this. Not really. We have the ancient tomes and to believe you are asked to accept the tomes as unerring fact and that there is no room for change on this.

I'd even be willing to give this credit if the tomes reflected a level of understanding that exceeds what we know today. See, it's one thing to say that it was written so that the people of it's day could understand it but if the book is meant to stand the test of time it has to be written to serve the needs of those who will read it in the future.

It doesn't make sense that it's written in clear language for one era but the following era's have to rely on faith and deal with inaccuracies that the earlier folks can understand.

For example, pi doesn't equal 3. They didn't know that then. But a supreme being, an omniscient one at that would know that it doesn't and would know that people would eventually figure that out. So, why would the supreme being throw in the bogus number that a few people would accept but in the future millions more would call bullshit on.

What makes more sense, that a supreme being would do that or that the book was written by men ?

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

But i have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, no way of testing what they tell me is true - how I do I know that after years of research, they didn't come up with anything and just made stuff up, or made a mistake in their calculations, and backed it up with made up evidence? How do I know the previous theories on which the current scientific formulae are based were right?

The glib answer is that you don't know.

No one knows for sure if the current scientific understanding is correct. There have been plenty of examples where something that was thought to be completely settled turned out to wrong. However, what you can do is assign levels of trust to certain things.

For example, if someone creates a web site claiming to have a perpetual motion machine, you can assign zero trust to their claims. Something like Newton's law of gravitation though, which has been checked and rechecked thousands of times can be assigned a high level of trust. But even that is only an approximation (to general relativity).

This is why I think science classes are important and need to focus on teaching the scientific method rather than memorizing facts. People need to learn how to evaluate claims and assign a level of trust to them. If it's just a matter of my experts are better than your experts, then there really is no difference between that and religion.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Does the model legislation referenced include the rotation bit, or is that a separate thing elsewhere on the website? (The latter is how I interpret your post)

Separately, as the story on the original memo in Georgia has developed, it's now in question whether Rep. Bridges had anything to do with the distribution of it or its content. It was sent to several states, under Bridges name, by a supporter who had talked with him about his efforts to change the way evolution/creation are currently taught in public schools That the supporter is responsible for the memo doesn't appear to be in question, both of them agree on that point, what's in a bit of dispute is how much of the details of it Bridges knew beforehand, which has become controversial not because of evolution/creation issues or anything about Earth's rotation, but rather because it is critical of the Kabbala/Kabbalists & has upset some Jewish groups.

It was indeed the latter.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I often ask myself why I generally believe science, but not religion?

The obvious answer is that people with far more intelligence than me have spent years and decades and centuries of research into these things, and because they tell me something is true, I accept it from a higher intellectual authority.

But i have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth, no way of testing what they tell me is true - how I do I know that after years of research, they didn't come up with anything and just made stuff up, or made a mistake in their calculations, and backed it up with made up evidence? How do I know the previous theories on which the current scientific formulae are based were right?

The same people who tell me that certain things are so also say that past scientists were in fact incorrect - maybe the current guys are wrong twice, or they were right that the previous guys were wrong, but have also come to incorrect conclusions themselves...

Do you believe in your TV.
Where did it come from?
Look around you, where did it all come form if science is wrong?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Do you believe in your TV.
Where did it come from?
Look around you, where did it all come form if science is wrong?

Sony

[Huckleberry]

Or you could send a DNA sample from yourself as well as one from your father and one from a stranger and see what the scientists say regarding which one you're related to.

Science can be tested. That's why you trust it.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Or you could send a DNA sample from yourself as well as one from your father and one from a stranger and see what the scientists say regarding which one you're related to.

Science can be tested. That's why you trust it.

I acknowledged your point and Surtt's in as much as there is evidence that there are obviosu examples that are correct. However, I also strongly believe we shouldn't go around killing other people, robbing other people, sleeping with others' wives, etc, which are basic tenets of religion.

The answer to my ponderings is that there is an earned trust, which is what you are basically saying, that more of what scientists tell me is true can be tested and concurred with than religion, but in my mind at least it is a valid question why do we unerringly accept all of science...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I acknowledged your point and Surtt's in as much as there is evidence that there are obviosu examples that are correct. However, I also strongly believe we shouldn't go around killing other people, robbing other people, sleeping with others' wives, etc, which are basic tenets of religion.

The answer to my ponderings is that there is an earned trust, which is what you are basically saying, that more of what scientists tell me is true can be tested and concurred with than religion, but in my mind at least it is a valid question why do we unerringly accept all of science...

Most people don't unerringly accept all science. I just have a higher initial faith in the effort science has put in to giving us that answer.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I generally accept that the earth rotates around the sun

The earth revolves around the sun.

that the earth spins off it's axis by a few degrees,

That's called rotating.

I'll let QS correct your other mistake.

[AlexB]

Unanswerable questions + beer = grammaticl mistkaes

I was gonna edit it, but it works better like that!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

The answer to my ponderings is that there is an earned trust, which is what you are basically saying, that more of what scientists tell me is true can be tested and concurred with than religion, but in my mind at least it is a valid question why do we unerringly accept all of science...

The easy answer to this would be to say that Global Warming debates shows that we don't unerringly accept all of science.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I acknowledged your point and Surtt's in as much as there is evidence that there are obviosu examples that are correct. However, I also strongly believe we shouldn't go around killing other people, robbing other people, sleeping with others' wives, etc, which are basic tenets of religion.

The answer to my ponderings is that there is an earned trust, which is what you are basically saying, that more of what scientists tell me is true can be tested and concurred with than religion, but in my mind at least it is a valid question why do we unerringly accept all of science...

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive.


[soapbox]

One of the most underrated achievements in western civilization is the "scientific method."

Basically every new theory is presented to the would, and the scientist dares the would to prove him wrong. In science nothing is ever "proven" right, that is why they are called are called "theories." You can certainly prove something is wrong, though, just show it doesn't match the real world.. If, after a while, a theory can not be proven wrong, others will go on the assumption that it is "right" and will build apron it.

Sometimes even well established theories are thrown out in this way. At the turn of the century Newtonian physics was one of the most successful theories in science. The only lose end was something called "Black Body Radiation." , it could not be explained using Classic (as it is called now) physics. It eventually forced physicists to toss out Newtonian physics and replace it with Quantum physics. A long and painful process, but it was done.

So to answer why you should believe all the science junk? You shouldn't. They are just abstract ideas describing nature. They are not "true" in any "real" way.
Keep in mind they are just something some one made up, but no one has been able to show that they are wrong.

This is why I get so angry at the creationists. It is not an attack one evolution, it is an attack one the entire scientific community. I do not know that evolution is "real." but it is a product of the scientific method and the best theory to explain the facts. It has been attacked by thousands of people and not one has been able to disprove it.

Accepting everything else in science, but singling it out evolution, makes no sense. You either believe in the system or you do not. The same process that brought you TV, brought you evolution.

[/soapbox]

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Accepting everything else in science, but singling it out evolution, makes no sense. You either believe in the system or you do not. The same process that brought you TV, brought you evolution.

That's painting with a broad stroke. I believe that evolution is not what many attempt to make it out to be. I believe there is evolution within species, humans have become "better humans" and other species have also adapted. There is no proof what-so-ever that people have evolved from single cell organisms as the extreme evolution freaks will attempt to say. If we have evolved from things that still exist today than simple laws of probability say that every link along that chain should exist today and there wouldn't be huge gaps along that chain.

There does not have to be a complete division of either believing entirely in evolutiuon or believing entirely in creation. We could have been created and then evolved from that point. Things do not have to be mutually exclusive yet both sides always take the extreme.