So the gist of it is this: it's impossible for these poor, God-fearing Christians to get advanced degrees in normal biological sciences, because they have to accept and understand the theory of evolution. The solution is to create your own private diploma mill and grant degrees in Jesus Horses; the only problem is that your graduates can't use them for anything practical, because they'll be laughed out of the offices of almost anyone to whom they present their credentials.
So what's a religion to do? Pass a law that grants legitimacy to the degrees that Christian diploma mills, as well as any other non-profit that wants to set up shop and start spewing degrees. I can imagine all sorts of New Age wackjobs creating schools in Texas. Now, you too can get a Masters in Chakra Management!
This sums up the problem quite well:
quote:
Schafersman fears that amending state law to accommodate institutions such as ICR would devalue Texas graduate degrees.The degrees would substandard, worthless, but they would be certified by Texas, he said.
This could cause trouble for graduates of smaller, accredited Texas schools, who don't have a nationwide reputation. Why should an employer bother to see if the applicant's school he hasn't heard of isn't one of the diploma mills? Plenty of other applicants out there who aren't from Texas, after all.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Captain Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 03-25-2009 at 11:26 AM.
Kegwen fucked around with this message on 03-25-2009 at 01:45 PM.
That said, there are legitimate theological degrees that have been available since time immemorial. I don't really get why these people feel the need to press their issue in this fashion.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Damnati who doth quote:
Darwinism requires a vast amount of faith in mysterious processes...
I'm not sure where you heard that, but you are completely and wildly incorrect. Darwin's theories are based on empirical evidence and observation of the world around us. In science, "Faith" in anything, mysterious or not, is not only completely unnecessary but very explicitly unwelcome.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Damnati wrote:
Kinda bullshit all the way around, if you ask me. Darwinism requires a vast amount of faith in mysterious processes in order to function; in light of this, it amuses me to see its proponents get so bent out of shape at a group of people whose faith is, instead, placed in a supreme being. True scientific thought would explore -all- options until incontrovertible proof was found of one specific method to the exclusion of all others. As it stands, it doesn't even take a scientist to punch huge holes in neo-Darwinist thinking; Darwin On Trial is a book by a Berkeley-educated attorney who pulls apart evolutionist thinking on a logical basis rather than shouting about what he feels when he prays.That said, there are legitimate theological degrees that have been available since time immemorial. I don't really get why these people feel the need to press their issue in this fashion.
It sure beats the whole "*poof* a Horse appeared 'theory'" though.
*poof, a horse appears*
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Damnati with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Kinda bullshit all the way around, if you ask me. Darwinism requires a vast amount of faith in mysterious processes in order to function; in light of this, it amuses me to see its proponents get so bent out of shape at a group of people whose faith is, instead, placed in a supreme being.
Stop lying. I can demonstrate the processes by which species evolve, and the mechanism of evolution fits the observed phenomena. You can't do the same for your invisible thing in the sky.
quote:
True scientific thought would explore -all- options until incontrovertible proof was found of one specific method to the exclusion of all others.
Stop saying stupid things, you liar. First, science has already examined--and rejected--every form of creationism, over the past 160+ years. Repeated tests and evidence demonstrate quite aptly that evolution is the correct theory. Also, it's incredibly stupid of you to demand that science come up with incontrovertible proof of anything, when that's not how science has ever worked. You accept gravity as the explanation for why you stay on the ground; does science have to come up with incontrovertible proof of this?
quote:
As it stands, it doesn't even take a scientist to punch huge holes in neo-Darwinist thinking; Darwin On Trial is a book by a Berkeley-educated attorney who pulls apart evolutionist thinking on a logical basis rather than shouting about what he feels when he prays.
Stop trying to pass off stupid things other people say as credible, you stupid liar. Attorneys are not scientists. A law degree is not a science degree. The fact that your source doesn't come from a scientist should set off alarms in your head. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes. Further, I challenge you to copypasta any of his arguments, and I guarantee I can expose them as fallacies, misrepresentations of current understanding, distortions of facts, outright lies, or any combination of the above.
In other words, it actually does take a scientist to challenge a scientific theory, because it is through adherence to the scientific method that theories can be objectively compared, and the better one selected. I guarantee that your lawyer does not adhere to any such protocol.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
If you'd like to refute the notions I present, grab a copy of the most recent edition of Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. He is the aforementioned Berkeley-trained attorney and he examines the various evolutionist positions from the basis of logic used rather than theoretical evidence. He examines the presentation of evidence the same way he would in a courtroom and pulls apart the various ideas of evolution from that standpoint. I won't vouch for his objective correctness on the issue but I do find that his book explains well my own problem with the scientific community on the subject.
Really now, if you can't accept criticism and empirically refute it without drawing on all sorts of heavily stretched and massaged statistics, you ought not to claim its anything other than a theory. I can't prove my position but I won't make claims to suggest I can, which is quite different from the scientific community. I would certainly be interested in your particular contribution, though.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Don't trust lawyers. Unless you're paying them... and they get paid based on how much you get.
quote:
Damnati had this to say about Knight Rider:
I really don't have any interest in debate on the subject. The forumites here have a particular slant and that's totally fine with me; I don't have an objection with evolution and Darwinist thought, myself. My problem lies with the community and its failure to maintain professional and logical integrity with itself, which one can easily say is a subjective view and, thus, subject to unresolvable debate.If you'd like to refute the notions I present, grab a copy of the most recent edition of Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. He is the aforementioned Berkeley-trained attorney and he examines the various evolutionist positions from the basis of logic used rather than theoretical evidence. He examines the presentation of evidence the same way he would in a courtroom and pulls apart the various ideas of evolution from that standpoint. I won't vouch for his objective correctness on the issue but I do find that his book explains well my own problem with the scientific community on the subject.
Really now, if you can't accept criticism and empirically refute it without drawing on all sorts of heavily stretched and massaged statistics, you ought not to claim its anything other than a theory. I can't prove my position but I won't make claims to suggest I can, which is quite different from the scientific community. I would certainly be interested in your particular contribution, though.
Well you see, it goes like this.
- There is no evidence to support creationism
- There is evidence to support evolution
- Therefore, there is no reason to believe creationism is true but there is reason to believe evolution is true
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Verily, Steven Steve doth proclaim:
Well you see, it goes like this.- There is no evidence to support creationism
- There is evidence to support evolution
- Therefore, there is no reason to believe creationism is true but there is reason to believe evolution is true
Evidence to support evolution is specious at best but it is not within my interests to debate it. Frankly, it will come down a "he said, she said" kind of thing because the evolutionist doesn't exist that can admit his is a theory, not a fact.
quote:
This one time, at Pvednes camp:
Damnati, the fact that you can't understand that words like "theory" have multiple definitions makes you a fucking idiot.
Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Evolution lacks of a coherency and internal consistency, so the first is out. The second fits since it is still largely conjecture and research into it is ongoing, as proven by work being done with the LHC and continuing research into the fossil record. Evolution is not a mathematical concept so the third doesn't work. The fourth applies as there are certainly multiple branches of science dedicated to research on subject (but not, notably, on any other possible option, however implausible). Five fits since evolution is a set of theoretical rules and principles regarding the origins of life. The last two are perfect fits since so much of the actual mechanics of evolution remain a mystery.
Science can claim what it likes about the proof it has for evolution, until someone produces a working model of the actual mechanics of evolution that can be demonstrated for every form of life on this planet, it is theory and not fact. I'm not saying my Flying Spaghetti Monster trumps your Pet Theory, I'm saying your theory is precisely what its name implies: unproven hypothesis. Get over it.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Damnati stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Evidence to support evolution is specious at best but it is not within my interests to debate it. Frankly, it will come down a "he said, she said" kind of thing because the evolutionist doesn't exist that can admit his is a theory, not a fact.
Sounds like the same insistence of fact that you're ironically attempting to describe. Adaptation by selection exists. This is a fact. It is one of the mechanisms of evolution. There's nothing "specious" about it, ha ha.
If evolution happens, then evolution is fact.
Adaptation by selection is evolution.
Adaptation by selection happens.
Therefore, evolution happens.
Therefore, evolution is fact.
Also, the fact that there is a newspaper funny named after the logical fallacy that asserts creationism as true should give some insight into how much credibility should be given to ICR, regardless of whether or not you believe in phenomena of genetic recombination and mutation that can be easily seen hundreds of times within a person's lifetime. Steven Steve fucked around with this message on 03-25-2009 at 10:20 PM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
that'd be cool
we wouldn't lose anyone we couldn't do without
quote:
Greenlit had this to say about John Romero:
because let's face it how many people are pious enough to be considered worthy, like 5?
I would say that I am fairly worthy
quote:
ACES! Another post by Mr. Parcelan:
I would say that I am fairly worthy
PRIDE, you're out.
surely my being surrounded by godless sodomites and irritable old people whilst maintaining my serendipitous virtue counts for something
god did it
just trust me
666
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
since its just a theory my flying unicorn theory is just as good
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Steven Steve got a whole lot of nerve:
We should keep in mind that the theory of gravitation doesn't describe everything so it only remains a theory
Heh, if only you scientists could simply understand the definition of a theory.
Here's a picture:
it's like some people can't figure out what a billion dollars is. they know it's a lot of money, but fuck if they can put that in any kind of scale for what it will buy you. never mind a trillion dollars, that might as well be space bucks.
Oh Ben, why didn't you do an economics movie 
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
it's like some people can't figure out what a billion dollars is.
Yeah, some people 
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Damnati said:
<Bullshit removed for clarity>
Not a single thing you said there contained any trace of honesty or good faith. You're a liar as well as a fucking idiot, even if you do have the misguided belief that you are capable of using a dictionary.
